INJUNCTIONS

"An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is either refrained from or directive to do
a particular act or thing. In the former case, it is known as prohibitory injunction and in the
latter case, as mandatory injunction." — Lord Halsbury

Quia timet action

Kuldip Singh v Subash Chander Jain, (2000) 4 SCC

A quia timet action is a bill in equity. It is an action preventive in nature and a specie of
precautionary justice intended to prevent apprehended wrong or anticipated mischief and
not to undo a wrong or mischief when it has already been done.

Temporary and Permanent injunction

Section 37

(1)Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specified time, or until the
further order of the court, and they may be granted at any stage of a suit, and are regulated
by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).

(2)A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon
the merits of the suit; the defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a
right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the rights of the
plaintiff.

The distinction between temporary and permanent injunction is that,

(i) a temporary injunction continues until a specific time, or until further orders of the
court, whereas a permanent injunction continues forever, under which the
defendant is perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right or from committing
an act injurious to the rights of the plaintiff-it concludes the right;
(ii) temporary injunction is granted at any stage of the suit, while permanent injunction
is granted at the hearing;
(iii) temporary injunction is granted on the basis of a prima facie case without going into
the detailed merits of the case, while permanent injunction is granted upon merits
of the case;
(iv) a temporary injunction ends with the determination of the suit; it may merge into
the decree of permanent injunction when one is granted. While an application will
lie under O XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC for disobedience of an order of temporary
injunction, upon grant of decree, the remedy lies in execution under O XXI, Rule 32
CPC.

District Board Shahjahanpur v Kailash Nath Kapoor, (1946)

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

PERPETUAL INJUNCTION
Sec 37(2) defines perpetual injunction as an injunction whereby defendant is perpetually
enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would be
contrary to the rights of the plaintiff

PRINCIPLES FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION

General rule: Section 38 (1)

Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual

injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in
his favour, whether expressly or by implication.

According to Woodrofe,

A permanent injunction is only granted when

(1) some established right has been invaded and

(2) when damage has must necessarily accrue from the act or omission complained of.
There must have been (1) a material injury to a clear legal right; and (2) damages must
not be a sufficient compensation.

1. Existence of an Obligation/Right : A perpetual injunction may be granted to

prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the applicant, whether
expressly or by implication. The word "obligation" is very wide in its application. It
 has the same meaning as in section 2(a) of Specific Relief Act, i.e., every duty
enforceable by law. 35 It is a tie or bond which constrains a person to do or suffer
something. 36 It may arise from contract, or may be in the nature of a trust, or an
obligation the breach of which amounts to a tort or civil wrong, or any other legal
obligation. It is a duty enforceable by law. Where no obligation is spelt out,
injunction cannot be granted. Hyderabad Stock Exchange Ltd v Rangnath Rathi
The term 'obligation' as used in the Specific Relief Act in its wider juristic sense
covers duties arising either ex-construction or ex-delicto. Every duty enforceable at
law is obligation. The definition clause of the Act of 1963 does not allow narrow
interpretation of the word 'obligation' to restrict it to a contractual duty alone. The
definition of the word 'obligation' as used in the Act of 1963 is wide enough and the
definition cannot be equated with the definition of the word 'obligation' used in the
English Law. 'Obligation' may be said to be a bond or tie, which constrains a person
to do or suffer something, it implies a right in another person to which it is co-
related, and it restricts the freedom of the obligee with reference to definite acts and
forbearance; but in order that it may be enforced by a Court, it must be a legal
obligation. The definition of 'obligation' in Section 2 of the Specific Relief Act is so
wide that any breach of legal obligation may give a cause to the affected party. The
definition of the word 'obligation' in Section 2 of the Act of 1963 should be
interpreted in a way which may serve the cause of the society. ESTATE OFFICER,
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. Vs. NIRMALA DEVI
2025 SC

2. Threat of breach of obligation: Mere prospect of apprehension of injury is not

sufficient. It must be shown that the act complained of is violative of plaintiff’s right,
or if carried out will result in such violation. Hyderabad Stock Exchange Ltd v
Rangnath Rathi

Breach of contractual obligation Sec 38(2)

(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules
and provisions contained in Chapter II.

Threat to Right to Property: Sec 38(3)

(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiffs right to, or enjoyment
of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:--

(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to
be caused, by the invasion;

(c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate
relief;

(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

Pir Agha Mahommad Hussain Jan v Elias Haji Wahiddino, AIR 1948 Sind 36

It is not in every case where the plaintiff's right to property is invaded that a perpetual
injunction will be granted. Injunctions may be granted where the value or utility of the
property itself or the very existence of the person entitled to it or having its possession, is
threatened. Where there is an invasion of the plaintiff's right to, or enjoyment of property,
an injunction, may be granted only in the four cases mentioned in clauses (i)-(iv) of sub-
section (3). There must, however, be a "right to, or enjoyment of, property."

Yamuna Nagar Improvement Trust v Khairati Lal, AIR 2005 SC 2245 : (2005) 10 SCC 30

The plaintiff must show his title to property in order to claim injunction. Where he has title,
and possession, he is entitled to injunction that his possession shall not be disturbed.
(land already acquired, hence no injunction).

SUBJECT TO OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER

Sections 41 and 38 must be read together, supplementing each other; 602 and right to
injunction cannot be determined independently of these section by reference to provisions
of section 37 alone. Hyderabad Stock Exchange Ltd v Rangnath Rathi & Co, AIR 1958 AP
43

[s 41] Injunction when refused.-

An injunction cannot be granted-

(a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution
of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a
multiplicity of proceedings;
(b) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not
subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought:

(c) to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body:

(d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal
matter;

(e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically
enforced;

(f) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it
will be a nuisance;

(g) to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced;

(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual made of
proceeding except in case of breach of trust:

(i) when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the
assistance of the court;

(j) when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.

MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Section 39: When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel
the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court
may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of,
and also to compel performance of the requisite acts.

Lakshmi Narain Banerjee v Tara Prosanna Banerjee, (1904) 31 Cal 944

Two elements must be considered for the grant of a mandatory injunction: [s 39] Mandatory
injunctions.-

(i) what acts are necessary in order to prevent a breach of the obligation; and
(ii) whether these acts are such as the court is capable of enforcing.

ESTATE OFFICER, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. Vs.

NIRMALA DEVI 2025 SC

The Conditions for granting a mandatory injunction as developed over time by a catena of
decisions of this Court may be summarized as under:

1. Obligation: There must be a clear obligation on the part of the defendant.

2. Breach: A breach of that obligation must have occurred or be reasonably
apprehended.
3. Necessity of the act: It must be necessary to compel the performance of
specific acts to prevent or rectify the breach.
4. Enforceability: The court must be able to enforce the performance of those
acts.
5. Irreparable Injury: The injury or damage caused by the breach must be
irreparable or not adequately compensable in monetary terms. A mandatory
injunction can only be granted where the plaintiff shows a very strong
probability upon the facts that grave damage will accrue to him in the future.
6. Balance of Convenience: The balance of convenience must be in favour of
the party seeking the injunction.

INTERLOCUTORY MANDATORY INJUNCTION

"...17. Being essentially an equitable relief, the grant or refusal of an interlocutory
mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the court to be
exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case..." — Dorab Cawasji
Warden V/s Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors, (1990) SC
Dorab Cawasji Warden V/s Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors, (1990) SC

The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted generally to preserve/restore

the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy
until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those
acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken
from the party complaining.

Jurisprudence behind the Grant of Interlocutory Mandatory injunction

A mandatory injunction can be granted on an interlocutory application as well as at the

hearing of the lis, but, in the absence of special circumstances, it will not normally he
granted. However, if the case is clear and one which the court thinks ought to be decided at
once, or if the act done is a simple and summary one which can be easily remedied, or if
the defendant attempts to steal a march on the plaintiff, such as where, on receipt of
notice that an injunction is about to be applied for, the defendant hurries on the work in
respect of which complaint is made so that when he receives notice of an interim
injunction it is completed, a mandatory injunction will be granted on an interlocutory
application.

In the matter of: Samir Narain Bhojwani V/s Aurora Properties & Investments & Anr.
2018 SC it was held that, it is well established that an interim mandatory injunction is not a
remedy that is easily granted. It is an order that is passed only in circumstances which are
clear and the prima facie material clearly justify a finding that the status quo has been
altered by one of the parties to the litigation and the interest of justice demands that the
status qua ante be restored by way of an interim mandatory injunction.

PRINCIPLES FOR THE GRANT OF INTERLOCUTORY MANDATORY INJUNCTION

Dorab Cawasji Warden V/s Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors, (1990) SC

Since the granting of interlocutory mandatory injunction to a party who fails to establish his
right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it
was granted or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively
not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great
injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved the following principles of caution that
require to be met before an interlocutory mandatory injunction may be granted-

i. A very strong case: The plaintiff praying for grant of interlocutory mandatory injunction
must have a strong case for trial. That is, the standard should be higher than that of a
prima facie case that is often required for grant of prohibitory injunction. For grant of
interlocutory mandatory injunction the case must be unusually strong and clear, and there
must be a higher degree of assurance that at trial it will appear that the injunction has been
rightly granted. 536 The power is not to be lightly exercised and ordering maintenance of
status quo as on the date anterior to the institution of suit is rare. It must be issued only in
cases of extreme hardship and compelling circumstances. Magnum Films v Golcha
Properties Pvt Ltd, AIR 1983 Del 392.

ii . Irreparable Injury: The grant of interlocutory mandatory injunction is necessary to

prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of
money.

iii. Balance of Convenience: The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking
grant of relief of interlocutory mandatory injunction.

Though the above principles are neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and
there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as prerequisite for
the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of judicial discretion.

The power is not to be lightly exercised and ordering maintenance of status quo as on the
date anterior to the institution of suit is rare. It must be issued only in cases of extreme
hardship and compelling circumstances. Magnum Films v Golcha Properties Pvt Ltd, AIR
1983 Del 392.