An Overview to Temporary Injunction under CPC.

Introduction

Originating from Equity Jurisprudence inherited from England, which in turn borrowed from Roman Law, the law of injunction in our country is deeply rooted. It upholds the fundamental principle that where there exists a right, there must be a corresponding remedy. An injunction serves as a judicial remedy, either prohibiting individuals from specific acts (restrictive injunction) or compelling them to rectify wrongs or injuries (mandatory injunction). These injunctions can be temporary, interim, interlocutory, or permanent in nature. Acting as a judicial process, it requires parties to either perform or refrain from particular acts. The primary aim of granting interim relief is to preserve disputed property until legal rights and conflicting claims are resolved by the court. Judicial discretion is exercised in granting or refusing interim relief. The decision to grant an injunction is based on maintaining or altering the “status quo,” contingent upon the circumstances of the case. While parties involved can seek temporary, permanent, or mandatory injunctions, it’s crucial to note that injunction isn’t an inherent right but rather a remedy granted by competent courts based on equitable principles, subject to discretionary judgment.

Meaning And Scope

The Oxford Law Dictionary defines injunctions as legal directives that prevent individuals from initiating or continuing actions that jeopardize or violate the legal rights of others, or compel them to perform specific actions, such as compensating an injured party. This definition encompasses all three types of injunctions. Similarly, Halsbury’s Laws describes injunctions as a legal remedy instructing individuals to refrain from certain actions or carry out specific tasks. The legal framework governing temporary injunctions is outlined in Section 94, Section 95, and Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.).

A temporary injunction functions as a provisional measure to maintain the current situation, primarily to offer immediate relief. Sections 94(c) and 94(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, introduce supplementary proceedings, enabling courts to prevent obstruction of justice. These sections authorize courts to issue temporary injunctions or interlocutory orders as deemed fair and convenient. In cases of disobedience, the court may enforce compliance by imprisoning the guilty party and ordering the attachment and sale of their property. Section 95 of the same Act allows for reasonable compensation to be awarded to the defendant if insufficient grounds are found for the injunction granted or if the plaintiff is unsuccessful in the lawsuit.

Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, outlines rules concerning temporary injunctions. Rule 1 lists the circumstances under which a court can grant a temporary injunction, including when property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated, or when the defendant threatens to remove or dispose of property with the intention of defrauding creditors. Rule 2 allows for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from breaching a contract or causing injury to the plaintiff. Rule 3 mandates the court to provide notice of the injunction application to the opposing party, except in cases where delay would defeat the purpose of the injunction. Rule 4 addresses the vacation of already granted temporary injunctions, while Rule 5 states that an injunction directed to a corporation binds not only the corporation itself but also its members and officers.

Application for seeking Temporary Injunction

An application for interim injunction along with affidavit may be made both Plaintiff or Defendant. Order 39 Rule (1) a, any party to the suit can apply for a Temporary Injunction.An Injunction may be issued only against a party and not against a stranger or third party. Further, the injunction cannot be issued against the Court or Judicial Officers.

However, a person on followings grounds can seek temporary injunction-

• When property is supposed to be wasted or damaged.
• When the opponent party is threatening to dispose of or remove property.
• When defendant dispossessed the plaintiff or caused injury to plaintiff with respect to property.
• When the court considers it necessary to grant an injunction for ends of justice.
• When defendant breaches the contract/peace.

Granting the temporary injunction is the exercise of discretion which should be in judicial manner. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for guidance of the court to that effect. Therefore, it is well settled that, before granting the Temporary Injunction, the Judge must consider whether the Application is falling into below-mentioned categories/ has Plaintiff shown following points-

1. Prima Facie case: In every application, the Applicant/Plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case supporting their claimed right. The Court must ascertain the presence of a sincere dispute between the parties requiring further examination. The Plaintiff bears the responsibility of proving their case and convincing the court with evidence or witnesses. It is essential for the Plaintiff to present all pertinent facts openly; any attempt to conceal material facts may hinder the Plaintiff from obtaining relief.
2. Irreparable Injury: Further, the applicant must satisfy the court that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff needs to be protected from the consequences of apprehended injury. An injury will be viewed as irreparable wherein there exists no certain monetary standard for calculating damages.
3. Balance of Convenience: The Applicant must prove in this application that there is the balance of convenience must be in favour of the applicant i.e. the comparative mischief, hardship or inconvenience which is likely to be caused to the Applicant if the injunction has been refused.  The balance of convenience comes into the picture when there is doubt as to the adequate remedies for damages available to either party or both.
4. Other factors: The Court also considers some other factors before granting an injunction. The relief of injunction may be refused on the ground of delay, laches or acquiescence or whether the applicant has not come with clean hands or has suppressed material facts, or where monetary compensation is adequate relief.

Legal Interpretation by the Court

In the case of Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. vs. Coca-Cola Co., the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment outlining guidelines for courts to follow when considering applications for temporary injunctions. These guidelines include:

• The applicant seeking the injunction must establish a prima facie case in their favor.
• The court should scrutinize the conduct of the applicant, even when considering an application to set aside an order under Order 39 Rule 4 of the code.
• The court must assess the comparative balance of loss between the applicant and respondent if the injunction is not granted. This involves examining the extent of loss that each party would suffer and whether such loss is reparable by monetary compensation.
• After considering these factors, the court determines which party would suffer greater and irreparable loss, favoring the party with a balance of convenience, and subsequently deciding whether to grant or reject the injunction.
• The court has the authority to direct the party to deposit security or provide an undertaking for the payment of compensation if the injunction is granted.  

In the case of Seema Arshad Zaheer vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2006), the Hon’ble Supreme Court outlined the essential aspects of a prima facie case. The court’s discretion to grant a temporary injunction is exercised only when the plaintiff satisfies the following requirements:

• The plaintiff must establish the existence of a prima facie case, indicating the necessity to protect the plaintiff’s rights through the issuance of a temporary injunction.
• The court compares the need to protect the plaintiff’s rights with the need to protect the defendant’s rights or potential infringement thereof. The balance of convenience should favor the plaintiff.
• There must be a clear possibility of irreparable injury to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. Additionally, since a temporary injunction is an equitable remedy, the court’s discretion to grant it is contingent upon the plaintiff’s conduct being blameless, and the plaintiff approaching the court with clean hands.

In the case of Best Sellers Retail India (P) Ltd. vs. Aditya Nirla Nuvo Ltd., the Supreme Court emphasized that prima facie evidence alone is insufficient to justify a temporary injunction. Such injunctions cannot be granted if the damage is not irreparable in the absence of the injunction.

In Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh, the court emphasized the cardinal principle for temporary injunctions. It stated that the party seeking an injunction would suffer “irreparable injury” due to the court’s non-interference, and no other remedy apart from the injunction is available to protect them from potential harm or dispossession. Irreparable injury refers to harm that cannot be adequately compensated through monetary compensation. The court must exercise sound judicial discretion when deciding whether to grant or refuse a temporary injunction. In Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hira Lal, the court held that civil courts have the inherent jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions, even if the case falls outside the scope of provisions under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

When Temporary Injunction cannot be Granted

1. To restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding at the institution of the suit, in which an injunction is sought, unless restraint is necessary to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
2. To restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a Court does not subordinate to that, from which injunction is sought.
3. To restrain any person from applying to any legislative body,
4. To restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter,
5. To prevent a breach of a contract the performance of which could not be specifically enforced.
6. To prevent on the ground of nuisance, and act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance.
7. To prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced,
8. When equally efficacious relief can be certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust,
9. When the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the Court.

Conclusion

The concept of temporary injunctions serves as a mechanism to provide immediate relief to parties facing injustice. Primarily, it is utilized to restore or uphold rights related to property, possession, and other entitlements for which the party has a prima facie claim. Without such intervention, the party would endure losses that cannot be compensated or rectified at a later stage. Injunctions are considered equitable remedies, thus invoking the maxim that those seeking equity must act equitably themselves. The grant of injunctions lies entirely within the discretion of the Court, which should exercise this discretion judiciously and in accordance with established judicial principles.

The principles are designed to administer justice and combat injustice. Therefore, in the hands of a judge, injunctions function as a tool to ensure justice without inflicting injustice upon another party. Depending on the circumstances, these principles are meticulously applied to achieve justice. Consequently, courts have developed well-defined guidelines and principles for granting interim injunctions, aiming to uphold fairness and equity in legal proceedings.

BY- Esha (Intern)