KHYODA JERNIA

19010125343

BATCH 2019-2024

8131064681

LAW OF INJUNCTION ASSIGNMENT

A person named XYZ is the defendant in a suit wherein XYZ threatens to

dispossess the plaintiff, ABC or otherwise he will cause injury to the plaintiff in

relation to any property in dispute.

Elaborate with the help of case laws and legal provisions on whether the court

will grant an injunction.

Introduction

An injunction is a judicial remedy granted to restrain a party from committing a threatened or

ongoing wrongful act. In this case, XYZ, the defendant, has threatened to dispossess the
plaintiff ABC, or to cause injury in relation to the disputed property. The key issue is whether
the court will grant an injunction to prevent XYZ from taking such action.

1. Relevant Legal Provisions

(a) Section 38 – Specific Relief Act, 1963

Section 38 provides for the grant of a perpetual injunction to prevent the breach of an
obligation in favour of the plaintiff. Particularly:

Section 38(3): When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to or
enjoyment of property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction.

(b) Section 39 – Specific Relief Act, 1963

This section provides for mandatory injunctions, which compel the performance of a certain
act to prevent breach of obligation.

(c) Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908

These rules empower the court to grant temporary injunctions in cases where:

 There is a prima facie case,

 The balance of convenience lies with the plaintiff,
 There is a likelihood of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.
2. Application to the Present Case

XYZ’s threat to dispossess ABC or otherwise cause injury in relation to the property
constitutes a threat of unlawful interference. Even if XYZ has not yet acted, the mere threat is
sufficient for the court to intervene under Section 38(3) of the Specific Relief Act.

ABC, as plaintiff, can seek an injunction by demonstrating:

 That they are in lawful possession of the property,

 That XYZ has no legal right to dispossess without due process,
 That a threat of dispossession or damage exists,
 That such action would cause irreparable harm.

3. Important Case Laws

(a) Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao (AIR 1989 SC 2097)

The Supreme Court held that no one should be dispossessed without following due process of
law, even if the person has no title but is in peaceful possession.

(b) Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (AIR 1993 SC 276)

The court emphasized that an injunction can be granted when there is a prima facie case, the
balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff, and there is a possibility of irreparable
injury.

(c) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086)

Though a public interest case, the Court highlighted the principle that injunctions are
preventive in nature, intended to stop threatened injury.

(d) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (AIR 1954 Bom 358)

It was held that where there is a threat of injury, courts are justified in granting an interim
injunction to prevent unlawful acts.

4. Conclusion

In the present case, since XYZ has threatened to unlawfully dispossess or injure ABC in
relation to disputed property, and if ABC can prove peaceful possession and absence of
lawful justification for XYZ’s actions, the court will be inclined to grant an injunction under:

 Section 38(3) of the Specific Relief Act for a perpetual injunction, and/or
 Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for a temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit.

This remedy aims to preserve the status quo and protect the plaintiff from unlawful harm.
Q.2: Elaborate with illustrations, relevant case laws and legal provisions on the different
types of Injunctions. (10 Marks)

Introduction

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that compels a party to do
or refrain from doing a specific act. Injunctions are preventive in nature and are used to
protect legal rights from irreparable harm. They are governed primarily by the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 and Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Types of Injunctions

Injunctions are broadly classified into the following types:

1. Temporary Injunction

Legal Provision: Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908

A temporary injunction is granted during the pendency of a suit to maintain status quo and
prevent irreparable damage.

When it is granted:

Prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff

Balance of convenience lies with the plaintiff

Irreparable injury would be caused if not granted

Illustration:

If A is in peaceful possession of land and B tries to forcibly occupy it, A may seek a
temporary injunction to restrain B during the pendency of the suit.

Case Law:

Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (AIR 1993 SC 276)

The Supreme Court held that all three conditions—prima facie case, balance of convenience,
and irreparable injury—must be satisfied for the grant of a temporary injunction.
2. Perpetual Injunction

Legal Provision: Section 38, Specific Relief Act, 1963

A perpetual injunction is granted by final decree, after hearing both parties, to permanently
restrain the defendant from violating the plaintiff's rights.

Conditions for Grant:

Defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s legal or equitable rights

The injury is repetitive, continuous, or cannot be adequately compensated

Illustration:

If A is the owner of land and B repeatedly tries to dump waste on it, A may seek a perpetual
injunction to restrain B from such activity permanently.

Case Law:

K.K. Verma v. Union of India (AIR 1954 Bom 358)

The Bombay High Court ruled that an injunction may be granted to prevent an apprehended
or threatened injury.

3. Mandatory Injunction

Legal Provision: Section 39, Specific Relief Act, 1963

A mandatory injunction compels the defendant to perform a specific act to prevent the breach
of an obligation.

When Granted:

To restore the plaintiff to their original position

When simply prohibiting the act is insufficient

Illustration:

If B unlawfully constructs a wall blocking A’s right of way, the court may issue a mandatory
injunction directing B to demolish the wall.
Case Law:

Gurbax Singh v. Bhooralal (AIR 1964 MP 225)

The court held that a mandatory injunction can be granted to undo the consequences of an
unlawful act.

4. Preventive (Prohibitory) Injunction

A preventive injunction is a broader term that includes both temporary and perpetual
injunctions, aimed at preventing the commission of an unlawful act.

Illustration:

If C threatens to cut down trees on land legally owned by D, a preventive injunction may
restrain C from doing so.

5. Injunction to Perform Negative Agreement

Legal Provision: Section 42, Specific Relief Act, 1963

This type of injunction is used to enforce a negative covenant in a contract where the plaintiff
has no adequate remedy in damages.

Illustration:

If an employee has agreed not to work for a competitor during the term of employment, and
he attempts to do so, the employer may seek an injunction to restrain the breach of the
negative covenant.

Case Law:

Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. (AIR 1967 SC 1098)

The Supreme Court upheld an injunction enforcing a negative covenant not to work for a
competitor during the contract term.

Conclusion
Injunctions are a powerful equitable tool designed to protect legal rights from unlawful
invasion or damage. Courts grant different types of injunctions based on the urgency, nature
of harm, and facts of the case. The Specific Relief Act and CPC provide a structured legal
framework, supplemented by judicial precedents that guide courts in exercising discretion
fairly and judiciously.

QUESTION 3

b. Grounds for Refusal of an Injunction (5 Marks)

Courts may refuse to grant an injunction on several grounds, including:

Lack of Prima Facie Case: If the plaintiff fails to establish a strong case in their favor.

No Irreparable Injury: If the harm can be compensated with money or is not serious in
nature.

Balance of Convenience Not in Plaintiff's Favour: If granting the injunction causes greater
harm to the defendant than the plaintiff.

Delay or Acquiescence: If the plaintiff has delayed seeking relief or silently accepted the
defendant’s actions.

Suppression of Material Facts: If the plaintiff hides relevant facts from the court.

Unclean Hands: If the plaintiff has acted dishonestly or unlawfully.

Infringement of Public Interest: Injunction may be refused if it harms public interest or

welfare.

Alternative Remedy Available: When an adequate legal remedy is available under the law.

c. Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225 (5 Marks)

Facts:

Kartick Das filed a suit seeking an injunction to restrain Morgan Stanley from launching its
Mutual Fund scheme in India.
The plaintiff had not actually applied for any shares and had no legal or contractual
relationship with the company.

Issue: Whether an injunction could be granted at the pre-issue stage of shares when there was
no concluded contract.

Judgment by the Supreme Court:

 The Court dismissed the plea for injunction.

 Held that no legal right of the plaintiff was violated since there was no privity of
contract.
 Injunction cannot be granted to prevent a party from doing a lawful act unless it
infringes on the legal rights of another.

Importance:

This case laid down guiding principles for granting ad-interim injunctions, including:

 Existence of a prima facie case,

 Balance of convenience,
 Irreparable injury,
 Conduct of the parties, and
 Public interest.