Subhashish Kumar Sahu, BBA LLB Student, KIIT School of Law
“Where the law fails to bind, an injunction steps in to untangle the knot of harm and hold it still.” In order to shed light upon the above thought we need to delve deeper into this topic of Injunction. A Person aggrieved from the other party’s actions is eligible to file a complaint in the court in the form of a plaint only when it is an act aroused of civil nature for which a relief can be provided, which is generally termed as suits of civil nature and is governed by the statute of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The civil court in pursuit of providing relief to the claimant and proceeding the case further, passes various orders and decrees. One such order is the grant of injunction which is also a relief that can be provided in these suits of civil nature that is duly pleaded by the petitioner by seeking an order for grant of Injunction. Apart from this, the other primary reliefs that are usually sought are declaration of rights and duties of the individuals and the monetary compensation which is the most common form of relief sought in most of the plaints. Injunction cannot be sought in criminal matters.
The term ‘Injunction’ itself is not defined anywhere in the code. But if coined for a term, Injunction would be defined as a remedy in the form of an order of the court as stated earlier, and addressed to a particular person either prohibiting him from doing or continuing to do a particular act or orders him to carry out a certain act. This brings to two forms of injunction based on its nature that a court can impose i.e., a prohibitory injunction which is in the nature of prohibiting a person to act or abstain from acting in a particular concerted way and the other one being a mandatory injunction, where the court compels or orders a person to act in a certain way. In the code of civil procedure, 1908, Order 39 deals with the Injunction.
The types of injunctions are not just limited to the ones stated above or the mentioned statute. On the basis of duration, there are two types, one is the permanent injunction that is dealt in Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the other is the temporary injunction is in rules 1 to 5 enumerated in Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The former is a perpetual one, restraining a party forever from doing an act that is usually granted at the conclusion of trial based on the merits of the case, while the latter one is an interim injunction that restricts a party only temporarily from performing the act till the suit is disposed or some further orders are passed by the court. There exists also another type, the preliminary injunction which is granted that the plaintiff avails before the trial. It saves the disputed subject matter to preserve it in its condition, preventing dilution of the plaintiff’s rights and providing immediate relief to the aggrieved plaintiff. It is therefore also called ad-interim injunction.
The object for grant of an injunction can be many, but the primary one is to preserve the disputed property till the rights of parties are absolutely disposed off or the case is completely adjudicated. “Injunctions do not compensate for wrongs; they stop them in their tracks.” The other important object is to obtain the status quo from the court in order to freeze the subject matter as they stand to gain proper merits on the case. However, the common causes in all the cases remains so as to prevent the irreparable harm that it can do if not granted as well as to bar the multiplicity of suits and procuring the said in the same suit itself. Sometimes, the court grants it in the view of curbing the abuse of process and to safeguard public interests. So, in a gist, it preserves the rights, maintaining judicial economy in an effort to ensure equity and fair play to the aggrieved party. As inspired by the case of Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992), “A court’s power to enjoin is its power to protect the status quo when irreparable harm looms.”
Even if the objects maybe many, the petition must satisfy some grounds as enumerated in Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 in order to seek the relief in this course. Rule 1 makes grounds to apply for, whether it is a plaintiff or a defendant as per the case when the disputed property is in danger of being wasted, alienated or deteriorated or when it is wrongfully sold in execution of a decree. It is also when the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of the property with a view to defrauding his creditors. It also makes a ground when the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in suit. The Rule 2 states an additional ground where the defendant is about to commit a breach of contract or other injury of any kind also makes it qualified to seek an injunction order. Apart from these, the court also has an inherent power as per section 151 of the CPC, 1908 which was also held in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 that where a court is of the opinion that the interest of justice so requires, it has inherent power to grant injunction under Section 151 of C.P.C. even on grounds that are not mentioned in Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. Hence, this does not make the grounds exhaustive in nature.
The essential principles that govern the granting of injunction is that, there must be a prima facie case with irreparable harm/ injury following the balance of convenience. The grant of injunction is a discretionary remedy is provided, so in fair exercise of it, court must adhere to these principles while granting them. To confirm with the existence of a prime facie case, the court must ascertain, there is a bona fide case with an arguable case for trial requiring evidences to be produced and investigations made in lieu of which a decision is made of merits along with a probability of the applicant being entitled to a relief on merits of the case. Similarly, the irreparable injury must be satisfied with the balance of convenience in favor of the applicant.
In the landmark case of Gujarat Bolting Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., AIR 1995 SC 2372, the Supreme Court held that since injunction is an equitable remedy, the applicant must satisfy the court that he acted in good faith with due care and caution and he was not at fault. The court must take into account the conduct of the party approaching the court. Injunction is an equitable remedy. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The case of American Cynamide Co. v. Ethicon Ltd, 1975 AC 396 said that the courts must consider whether the applicant would be adequately compensated by costs because of injury which he has sustained. If damages are recoverable then no temporary injunction should be granted. In furtherance of it, court had also held that the complicated question of fact, conflict of evidence and detailed arguments are matters to be dealt at the trial and not at the stage of temporary injunction. The burden to prove the existence of prima facie case is on the person who wishes to secure injunction.
The ad-interim injunction as stated above is also called ex-parte injunction. As, the general rule of Order 39 Rule 3 speaks of court to give notice to the opposite party before granting the injunction. But, if the object of the injunction appears so as to it would be defeated by the reason of delay, the court may abstain from it. In pursuit of it, the court shall also require the applicant to deliver to the opposite party a copy of affidavit, plaint and other relied documents by registered post as soon as ex-parte interim injunction in granted along with filing an affidavit the following day that the above requirements have been duly complied with.
The necessary factors that should be considered while granting these ex-parte injunctions were held by Supreme Court in the landmark case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Karthik Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225 that whether the refusal of ex-parte injunction would involve greater injustice than grant of it or the irreparable injury will ensue to the plaintiff or whether the party is applying it in utmost good faith or not. The court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff had first notice of the complained act as well as ensuring the compliance of general principles stated before. As per Rule 3A, the injunction will be of limited period and the application will be decided within 30 days thereafter the order has been passed.
Injunctions do not compensate for wrongs; they stop them in their tracks. Once, the grounds for injunction are established courts have to follow the principles in view of good conscience and justice. In the recent landmark case of TV Ramakrishna Reddy v. M Mallappa (2021), that a suit simpliciter for injunction can only be filed in those cases where the title of the plaintiff over the property is not under cloud, which enlightens on the disclosure part. Hence, an injunction is the sword and shield of equity which is swift to protect rights and strong enough to restrain wrongdoing. Therefore, Injunctions are not remedies of last resort; they are remedies of first necessity when damages simply won’t do.
