Parameters for granting Interim Injunctions
Author: Sudhanshu Sachan, Central University of South Bihar.
What do you mean by Injunctions?
The Oxford law dictionary defines injunctions as “A judicial order restraining a person from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the legal right of another, or compelling a person to carry out a certain act, e.g. to make restitution to an injured party.”
Injunctions means an order of the court of law which tells
someone to do or not to do something which is required for maintaining justice
and equity. They are of two types –
What do you mean by Temporary
injunctions are also known as interlocutory
injunctions or interim injunctions. Temporary injunctions are granted for a
time period or until further order of the court.
can be granted at any stage of the suit.
of the parties can apply for temporary injunctions.
cannot be issued against any third party.
is only provisional in nature.
does not concludes the matter.
such injunctions is just to maintain the status quo.
Laws that govern injunctions in India
our country in Criminal matters
142 and 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with grant of injunction.
the law relating
to grant of injunction is contained in Chapter VII of Part III of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963. Sections 36 to 42 deal with the grant of injunction.
Section 37(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with the temporary
injunctions which are such as are to continue until a specified time, or until
further orders of the Court, and they may be granted at any stage of the suit
or proceedings and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure.
Parameters for granting Interim
Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 interim injunctions can be
granted in these cases-
in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise—
any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of
by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold
in execution of a decree, or
- or intends, to remove or dispose of his
property with a view to [defrauding] his creditors,
the defendant threatens
dispossess, the plaintiff or
cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the
The Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act.
make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting,
damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property [or
dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in
relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the Court thinks fit, until
the disposal of the suit or until further orders.
the case of Dalpat kumar v. Prahlad
Singh, the court said that the situations mentioned in this Order 39 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not exhaustive. The judiciary can evolve more
heads for granting such injunctions.
But the heads should be evolved judiciously,
reasonably and in the light of existing laws and legal principles. This is
because granting injunction to one party must not result in harm to the other.
And also such heads set up precedents and setting of wrong precedents may
create more problems.
Some other heads for granting
facie case – It simply means that the party
asking for the injunction needs to prove that the primary facts and evidences
of the case show that if the decision of the case comes it will fall on their
side. The party has to prove its claim that he is entitled to property,
possession or otherwise. And if the court finds the claim of the party to be
rightful, it may grant injunctions.
It was held in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund V/s. Kartik
Das, that “a prima-facie case implies the probability of the plaintiff
obtaining a relief on the material placed before the Court. The Court should be
satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing and that
on the facts before it, there is probability that the plaintiff is entitled to
- Irreparable loss or
injury – The courts needs to assess that if
injunction is not granted to the party asking for it, then will it cost a huge
loss to the party. If the court gets convinced that the party will suffer such
loss that cannot be compensated, it may grant injunctions. It should be granted
only in cases where the party has no other alternative remedy left except this.
In the case of Dalpat
Singh, It was held that “The Court further has to
satisfy that non-interference by the Court would result in “irreparable
injury” to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy
available to the party except one to grant an injunction and he needs
protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession.
Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical
possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a
material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of
- Balance of Convenience –
The court needs to assess that if they grant injunctions to the party seeking
for it, then what effect it would have on the other party. If they see that the
other party won’t be affected much it may grant injunctions. But if it seems to
the court that the other party will suffer huge losses it may not grant
injunctions. The courts need to strike a balance of convenience i.e. give a
decision that suits to both the parties and doesn’t affects one more than the
other. The court must always remember
the objective of granting such injunction that is to maintain the status quo.
When injunction cannot be granted-
- If the party has
approached the court by hiding some facts important to the case and seeks for
injunction, then it must not be granted.
- No interim injunction
can be granted if final relief cannot be granted.
- When the plaintiff has
no personal interest in the matter, injunction cannot be granted.
- When other remedy is
available, injunction cannot be granted.