INTRODUCTION

Specific Relief Act of 1963

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 is an Act of the Parliament of India which provides remedies

for persons whose civil or contractual rights have been violated. It replaced an earlier Act of
1877. The following kinds of remedies may be granted by a court under the provisions of the
Specific Relief Act:

 Recovery of possession of property

 Specific performance of contracts
 Rectification of instruments
 Rescission of contracts
 Cancellation of Instruments
 Declaratory decrees
 Injunction

Preventive relief
The preventive relief in the form of injunction has been dealt with in Chapter VIII of the
specific Relief Act 1963. An injunction is a writ framed according to the circumstances of the
case commanding an act which the court regards as essential to justice, or restraining an act
which it esteems contrary to equity and good conscience. It may be either a final remedy
obtained by a suit or a preliminary or interlocutory relief granted while the suit is pending. In
the first case it is a decree and in the second an order or writ. Whatever be its forms, decree or
order, the remedy of injunction is wholly preventive, prohibitory or protective, though it may
be in the form of mandatory injunction. An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is
ordered to refrain from doing or directed to do a particular act or thing. In the former case, it
is called a restrictive injunction and in the later, a mandatory injunction. Injunction is the
means for granting specific relief by prevention of a party from doing that which he is under
an obli1gation not to do. An injunction as is well known an equitable relief and accordingly is
1
[Link]

pg. 1
to conform to well known maxim of the law of equity, that he who seeks equity must do
equity. The law as contained in the Specific relief Act is governed by aforesaid

There can be cases where the nature of the contract does not allow damages to likely serve
any purpose nor admit to specific performance. In such cases, the court may have to restrain
the party who threatens the breach, to the possible extent. For example, a person undertakes a
contract to sing at a particular place and also undertakes not to sing anywhere else during the
same period. In case the singer threatens breach, the court cannot force him to sing. The
positive side of the bargain is not specifically enforceable. But the negative undertaking i.e.
not to sing elsewhere, can be enforced by restraining him from singing elsewhere. When he is
prevented from resorting to other openings, it may exert some pressure upon his mind and he
may be persuaded to go ahead with the performance of his contract. This type of remedy is
known as preventive relief. This is granted by issuing an order known as
injunction. Injunction is an order issued upon the party concerned directing him/them to omit
the performance of a particular duty or act. This is also known as a mandatory injunction.
Such relief is granted under the provisions of Part III of the Act.

History of the Law of Injunction

India observes the origin of Law of Injunction in English Jurisprudence of Equity; it is where
we inherited the present administration of law. An injunction that is an authoritative warning
or order is derived from French and Latin verb ‘injungere’ which means “To Join”. Like our
verb injoin, injungere means “To direct or impose by authoritative order or with an urgent
admonition.” The Law of Injunction as we have adopted from England was in fact adopted by
English People from Roman Law, where it was known as interdict. The Injunction as a
chancery remedy developed at the time of Henry. It is pertinent to note the historical
background which manifests the origin of the power of Equity. The Jurisdiction to issue
Injunction is a remedy which is termed as the Strong arm of the courts which consolidates the
position of Judiciary in dispensing justice between the litigant parties.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

pg. 2
This project contains research done using the Doctrinal Research Methodology. All the
research done for this project has been done by referring to various published books, articles
on the internet and various websites, meaning that all the research done herein is second
hand. Thus, the methodology is concerned with the analysis of the legal doctrine and how it
was developed and applied. This is purely a theoretical research that consists of simple
research aimed at finding a specific statement of the law. It is a library-based research that
seeks to find the appropriate answer to the certain legal issues or questions, aimed at in the
hypothesis and tackled in the conclusion. Thus, the aim of this type of methodology is to
make specific inquiries in order to clarify and understand specific pieces of information.

HYPOTHESIS

 What is injuction and why it is granted ?

An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that

compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary
remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full
coercive powers ,an injunction is to preserve the status quo in situations in which further acts
of the specified type, or the failure to perform such acts, would cause one of the parties
irreparable harm.

 What are the essentials of injuction?

1. it is a judical process
2. the object attained thereby is restraint or prevention.
3. the thing restrained is a wrongful act
4. an injunction acts in personam and does not run with land.

pg. 3
LITERATURE REVIEW

Injunction is a order issued by a court ordering someone to do something or prohibiting some

act after a court hearing.

Definition of Injunction accorging to different persons:

Burney defined injunction as, “a judicial process, by which one who has invaded or
threatening to invade the rights of another is restrained from continuing or commencing such
wrongful act”.

The most expressive and acceptable definition is the definition of Lord Halsbury.

According to him, “An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party in an order to refrain
from doing or to do a particular act or thing.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 is an Act of the Parliament of India which provides remedies

for persons whose civil or contractual rights have been violated. It replaced an earlier Act of
1877. The following kinds of remedies may be granted by a court under the provisions of the
Specific Relief Act:

 Recovery of possession of property

 Specific performance of contracts
 Rectification of instruments
 Rescission of contracts
 Cancellation of Instruments
 Declaratory decrees
 Injunction

INJUNCTION

Injunction derives, via Anglo-French and Late Latin, from the Latin verb injungere, which
in turn derives from jungere, meaning "to join." Like our verb enjoin, injungere means "to
direct or impose by authoritative order or with urgent admonition." 

Injunction is a order issued by a court ordering someone to do something or prohibiting some

act after a court hearing. The procedure is for someone who has been or is in danger of being
harmed, or needs some help (relief) or his/her attorney, to

a) petition for the injunction to protect his/her rights; to

pg. 4
2
b) get an "order to show cause" from the judge telling the other party to show why the
injunction should not be issued; c) serve (personally delivered) the order to show cause on the
party whom he/she wishes to have ordered to act or be restrained ("enjoined"); partake in a
hearing in which both sides attempt to convince the judge why the injunction should or
should not be granted.

The breaching party may sometimes be able to raise a defense if the plaintiff is seeking an
injunction against them. This includes the following defenses:

 Unclean Hands: A plaintiff cannot obtain an injunction if they have engaged in

similar misconduct as the defendant. Thus, if the plaintiff also breached a contract this
defense may be available.
 Laches: This is available when a plaintiff intentionally delays asking the court for an
injunction and the delay negatively affects the defendant.
 Hardship: An injunction may not be enforceable if it causes the defendant extreme or
undue hardship, such as costing the defendant a large amount of money.

In Indian legal system the law of injunctions is mainly governed by Order XXXIX and
section 36 and 42 of the Specific relief Act. Section 94(c) of the Civil Procedure Code also
gives supplemental provision for grant of temporary injunction. It is also settled that there is
no bar in granting injunction or supplementary orders under Section 151 of the Civil
Procedure Code for compliance of injunction in just cases. The later provision of inherent
powers increases the scope of civil courts for granting injunctions

OBJECT

Until legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the court are adjudicated by the
grant of the interim relief an individual’s property can be preserved. Basically, the object of
making an order regarding interim relief is to evolve a workable formula to the extent called
for by the demands of the situation, keeping in mind the pros and cons of the matter and
striking a delicate balance between two conflicting interests, i.e., injury and prejudice, which
the plaintiff had to bear if the relief is refused; and same goes for defendant if the relief is
2
[Link]

pg. 5
granted. The court in the exercise of sound judicial discretion can grant or refuse to grant
interim relief.

The main object of granting an individual temporary injunction is to maintain and preserve
status quo at the time of proceedings institution and to avoid any change in it until the final
determination of the suit. It is in the nature of protective relief granted in favour of a party to
prevent future possible injury.

Essentials of injuctions

 it is a judical process
 the object attained thereby is restraint or prevention.
 the thing restrained is a wrongful act
 an injunction acts in personam and does not run with land

Comparison of English and Indian Law

The nature of discretion and the rules of guidance for issuing orders of an injunction are the
same in both English and Indian Law. Under English law damages in substitution for an
injunction may be given if:

 The injury to the plaintiff’s legal rights is small;

 The injury is one which is capable of being estimated in money;
 The injury can be adequately compensated by a small payment; and
 The case is one in which grant of an injunction would be oppressive to the
defendant.

In India also some of these rules are incorporated in sections of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Some other heads for granting injunctions include-

Prima 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.

pg. 6
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
the relief.”

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 damages.”

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.

TEMPOPARAY INJUNCTION

It provides that 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 Court may grant a
temporary injunction to restrain such an act or make other order for the purpose of preventing
the dispossession of the plaintiff or for the purpose of preventing the causing of injury to the
plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute. If the defendants are creating third party
interest/rights as he is trying to dispose of part of the property, the plaintiff can claim the

pg. 7
injunction. Temporary injunction is a provisional remedy that is invoked to preserve the
subject matter in its existing condition. Its purpose is to prevent dissolution of the plaintiff's
rights. The main reason for use of a temporary injunction is the need for immediate relief.

Section 37(1) in The Specific Relief Act, 1963

(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).

While granting temporary injunction the tests be applied are :

(1)Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case

(2)Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of plaintiff and

3
(3) Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if his prayer for temporary
injunction is disallowed.

The court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial
discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to
the parties, if the injunction is refused, and compare it with that which is likely to be caused
to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or
probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the court considers that, pending the suit, the
subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus the
court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad
interim injunction pending the suit. At the stage of deciding the application for temporary
injunction, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the case in detail. Generally,
before granting the injunction, the court must be satisfied about the following aspects : One
who seeks equity must come with clean hands. One who seeks equity must do equity.
Whenever there is right there is remedy. The power to grant a temporary injunction is at the
discretion of the court. This discretion, however, should be exercised reasonably, judiciously
and on sound legal principles. Injunction should not be lightly granted as it adversely affects
the other side. The grant of injunction is in the nature of equitable relief, and the court has
undoubtedly power to impose such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. Such conditions,

3
[Link]

pg. 8
however, must be 6 reasonable so as not to make it impossible for the party to comply with
the same and thereby virtually denying the relief which he would otherwise be ordinarily
entitled to.

CASE: Volition Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs Mrs. Madhuri Jitendra Mashroo on 13

February, 2003

The plaintiff, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 has
filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 24th July, 2002,
alternatively and/or for damages to the tune of Rs. 15 Crores as set out in the particulars of
claim with interest. The plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration that the termination of the
aforesaid agreement viz., the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24th July, 2002
is illegal, void and contrary to the terms of the contract and law. The plaintiffs have further
sought declaration that the said agreement is valid, subsisting and binding on the defendants.
There are other incidental prayers including the interim reliefs that have been prayed for by
the plaintiffs,

2. In the present notice of motion, the plaintiffs have prayed for appointment of Court
Receiver for the suit property and also an injunction against the defendants from creating any
third party interest of any nature in the suit property and also injunction against the
defendants from transferring any tenancy right or creating any new tenancy in respect of the
existing tenaments as set out in Exh. C to the plaint. An affidavit of the Director of the
plaintiffs Shri H. N. Shah is filed in support. The defendant has filed affidavit in reply dated
4th February, 2003.

CASE: Gujarat Electricity Board, ... vs Maheshkumar & Co., Ahmedabad on 25

March, 198 AIR 1982 Guj 289, (1982) 2 GLR 479

 This is a revision application by the original defendant of the Civil Suit No. 112 of 1981
pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) at Gandhinagar. The opponent herein is M/s.
Maheshkumar & Co., the plaintiff, who have filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that the
contract of lifting fly-ash alleged to be entered into between the parties was in operation for a
period of three years and the plaintiff wanted an injunction, restraining the defendant, the
Gujarat Electricity Board, from disturbing the plaintiffs while lifting the fly-ash from
Gandhinagar Power Station belonging to the defendant Electricity Board. Along with the suit,

pg. 9
an application, Ext.5, for an interim injunction was given by the plaintiffs. The learned trial
Judge, after hearing both the sides, had refused to grant that injunction, Being aggrieved by
the said order of the learned trial Judge, the Misc. Appeal No. 118/81 had come to be filed by
the original plaintiff, seeking the injunction to operate till the disposal of the suit. The learned
Extra Assistant Judge, Mr. H. P. Hathi, by his impugned order held as follows:-

"Appeal is allowed and respondent-defendant is restrained from disallowing the appellant-

plaintiff to lift fly-ash till the decision of the suit on a condition that appellant-plaintiff would,
if he succeeds, pay for fly-ash lifted, in pursuance of the terms decided by the Court and if he
fails, he shall pay Rs. 40/- per truck load and till the decision of suit, the appellant-plaintiff
would be allowed to lift fly-ash during the pendency of the suit at the rate of Rs. 251- per
truck load and furnish guarantee or surety in the Court to pay balance amount at the rate of
Rs. 151- or any other rate that the our may decide truck load if the suit fails as such."

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid grant of injunction, the original defendant, the Gujarat
Electricity Board, has invoked this High Court's revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of the
Civil Procedure Code.

PERPETUAL INJUNCTION

Section 37(2) in The Specific Relief Act, 1963

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.

Perpetual injunction is a court order prohibiting a party from a specific course of action.
Perpetual injunction is one that is granted by the judgment that ultimately disposes of the
injunction suit. It is ordered at the time of final judgment. This type of injunction must always
be a final relief. Permanent injunctions are regarded as perpetual conditions that produced
them remain permanent. They can be granted to prevent blasting upon neighboring premises,
to enjoin the dumping of earth or other material upon land, and to prevent pollution of a water

pg. 10
supply. An individual who violates an injunction may be punished for contempt of court. A
p4erson is not guilty of contempt, however, unless he or she can be charged with knowledge
of the injunction.

Section 38 of SRAct Section 38 of Specific Relief Act deals with, when and how the
perpetual injunctions can be granted in favour of the plaintiff. Now we will go through with
the section 38 of Specific Relief Act. 38. Perpetual injunction when granted. 

(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. 

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

(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 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.

If we analyze the section, it begins with “subject to other provisions contained in or refereed
by chapter III” therefore, the powers of the courts in granting the relief of perpetual
injunction under section 38 were controlled by sections 39 to 42. One can not go with section
38 of SR Act in isolation while granting the relief of perpetual injunction, and the cautions
enumerated in the above sections has to be taken. The first point that requires for obtaining
injunction, there must be an obligation and breach of it. The said obligation may be express
or implied. The next one is, if the said obligation is by virtue of a contract, the courts have to
follow chapter II of S.R. Act I.e section 9 to 25 which deals with specific performance of
contract. The third and ultimate one which enables the court to grant perpetual injunction
when the defendant disturbs or tries to disturb the plaintiff’s right or enjoyment, being
4
[Link]

pg. 11
entrusted by the plaintiff for specific purpose to look after the property on his behalf or there
is no scale to measure the loss that is going to be caused to him and cannot be compensated
with money and also to avoid multiplicity of the judicial proceedings. If the plaintiff fulfills
the above requirements then the courts has to be granted the relief of perpetual injunction.
Therefore, for granting perpetual injunction one must have the overall
/understanding/knowledge of sections 9 to 25, and 38 to 42,depending upon the facts and
circumstances of the case. In other words, more than half of the litigation before trail courts
running around 42 sections of the specific relief act.

CASE: Parkasho Devi And Ors. vs Tarsem Lal And Anr. on 21 November, 2002
AIR 2003 PH 245

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs, against the judgment and decree,
passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the Appeal, filed by the defendants, was
accepted, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, were set aside and the suit of the
plaintiffs was dismissed.

The facts, in brief, are that the plain tiffs, Smt. Parkasho Devi, etc., filed a suit for permanent
injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering or forcibly dispossessing
the plaintiffs from the suit land. It was alleged that Chuni Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the
plaintiffs, was in cultivating possession of the suit land under the owners, namely Ajit Singh,
etc., and that after the death of Chuni Lal, the plaintiffs were in cultivating possession of the
suit land, being the widow and sons of Chuni Lal and they were paying rent to the
landowners. It was alleged that the defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit land
and were threatening to take forcible pos-session of the suit land from the plaintiffs. In the
written statement filed by the defendants, it was alleged that the plaintiffs were not in
possession of the suit land. It was alleged that the suit land was declared sur-plus in the hands
of the owners and the land vested in the State Government and the Punjab State became the
owner of the suit land. It was alleged that the defendants were in cultivating possession of the
suit land and the suit land was allotted to them on payment of compensation, under the orders
of the Collector. Agrarian dated 17-5-1985. It was denied that Chuni Lal was in cultivating
possession of the suit land or that after his death, the plaintiffs were in cultivating possession
of the suit land and were cultivating the suit land on payment of batai. It was alleged that in
fact, the defendants were in possession of the suit land since Rabi 1983, after the earlier

pg. 12
occupant of the suit land had left its possession. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned
trial Court framed various issues.

MANDATORY INJUNCTION

Injunction is an equitable relief and it is a settled law that equity acts in personam, therefore,
injunction is a personal matter. The purpose of mandatory injunction is to restore a wrongful
state of things to their former rightful order. Principal difference between prohibitory
injunction and mandatory injunction is that, in the former the defendant is prohibited from
doing a particular thing in a particular manner, whereas, in the latter, the defendant is directed
to do a particular thing and if he fails to do as directed, the court gets it done through its
officers. Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not define but categorically deals
with grant of mandatory injunction.

Two elements have to be taken into consideration to determine the grant of mandatory
injunction, these are: a) What acts are necessary in order to prevent a 2 breach of the
obligation; and,

(b) The requisite acts must be such as the court is capable of enforcing. Mandatory injunction
is not to be granted:

(a) Where compensation in terms of money would be an adequate relief to the plaintiff;

(b) Where balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant;

(c) Where plaintiff has shown acquiescence in the acts of the defendant; and,

(d) To create a new state of things, but rather to restore status quo.

In the case of, Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sarab Warden, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India held that, for grant of interim mandatory injunction the following test must be
complied with:

(a) The plaintiff has to demonstrate a strong case for trial, that is, it should be of a standard
higher than that of a prima facie case;

(b) The plaintiff has to lay-bare that the grant of mandatory injunction is necessary to prevent
irreparable loss or serious injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money; and,

pg. 13
(c) The balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant.
Mandatory 5injunctions are sometimes availed of as reliefs in the nature of ‘quia timet’, that
is, in a proper case, mandatory injunction may be granted when there is a threat of infraction
of the plaintiff’s right before the infraction has actually occurred. Principles governing
Mandatory Injunction: Mandatory injunction is an order requiring the defendant to do some
positive act for the purpose of putting an end to a wrongful state of things created by him, or
otherwise in fulfilment o his legal obligation.

Essentials: Two conditions must be fulfilled for a mandatory injunction can be granted.

1. There must be an obligation on the part of defendant to perform certain acts the breach of
which obligation, must be alleged by the plaintiff.

2. Relief must be enforceable by the court. Prevention of breach of obligation: Section 55

Specific Relief Act, enables the issuance of an injunction to prevent the breach of an
obligation and to compel the performance of acts which are necessary to prevent such breach.
Power to grant mandatory injunction is to be exercised in very exceptional and rare
circumstances, subject to the conditions laid down in section 55, which requires the relief
can only be granted, where breach of an obligation, is capable to specific performance by the
court, where the agreement is not specifically enforceable relief of mandatory injunction
cannot be granted. Relief must be enforceable by court: A mandatory injunction can be
granted where the court can enforce it. Where the injunction is not enforceable, the court
would not grant it. Thus, a mandatory injunction directing a person to undertake the repairs
and work of improvement involving engineering skill and expenses cannot be granted as the
court is not capable of enforcing it. Order to compel performance of acts: Section 55 enables
the issuance of an injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation and to compel
performance of acts which are necessary to prevent such breach. A court can grant a
mandatory injunction when an unlawful act obstructs the proper enjoyment of the plaintiff’s
right of property. The court in such circumstances compels the defendant to performance of
certain acts required to do.

Discretionary Powers: The jurisdiction to issue a mandatory injunction is a discretionary

jurisdiction which can be exercised only in a case which falls strictly within the four corners
of section 55. In case of grant of mandatory injunction the decision must depend to a very

5
[Link]

pg. 14
extent on the facts of each particular case. The court would not grant mandatory injunction if
the public good secured by its exercise is comparatively much smaller than the loss suffered
by the individual. Parties must be heard: Where Hon’ble High Court appeared to have acted
in haste in the issuance of such injunction without affording opportunity of hearing to
opposite side order in question was not sustainable.

Mandatory injunction ought not to be granted as interim relief: Mandatory injunction cannot
be granted by way of interim relief as a grant of such injunction would be tantamount to a
grant of final relief which would seriously prejudice the defendant. However, mandatory
injunction can be granted in exceptional circumstances, for saving life etc but that can be
granted to restore the status quo on the date of filing of suit and not before the same. 4 Parties
to be affected must be impleaded: The court has essentially to adjudge if plaintiff’s cause has
any legal basis and whether the prayer made can lawfully be granted. Court has to see
whether effective decree could be passed in the terms prayed for only against the persons or
parties arrayed as defendant where such persons were deleted or were not impleaded as co-
defendants. Plaintiff could not succeed in his cause even if he had a genuine grievance and a
justifiable basis for his claim.

CASE : M/S Pradeep Oil Corporation vs Union Of India on 30 January, 2012

This intra Court appeal impugns the judgment dated 08.11.2011 of a Single Judge of this
Court dismissing W.P.(C) No.4694/2011 preferred by the appellant herein. The said writ
petition was filed by the appellant to restrain the respondent Railways from carrying out any
demolition on and from dispossessing the appellant from premises at 13 KM, Rohtak
Road, Shakur Basti, Delhi -110 056 and impugning the notice dated 27.12.2010 issued by the
respondent Railways to the appellant. The writ petition was filed on 07.07.2011 when the
action of demolition and dispossession was already underway.

2. The writ petition was taken up for hearing on 07.07.2011 itself, when the counsel for the
respondent Railways appearing on advance notice stated that the writ petition had become
infructuous as the respondent Railways had taken complete possession of the premises in
question on 06.07.2011 and had also handed over the site for construction of coaching
terminal. The said statement of the respondent Railways was controverted by the appellant
and in view of the conflicting stands with regard to possession, status quo was directed to be
maintained.

pg. 15
 PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION

Prohibitory injunction refers to an injunction that prohibits the defendant from taking a
particular action and maintains the positions of the parties until there is a hearing to
determine the matter in dispute. An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court
order, whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, certain acts. An injunction
clearly forbids a certain type of conduct. A person who violates an injunction is in contempt
of court and the court may fine or imprison him.

This type of injunction is very serious and the application must meet certain criteria for the
court to order one. These are:
1. The application must be brought in the court where the main proceedings to the case
have been brought or will be brought. You cannot apply for a prohibitory injunction on its
own; it must be as part of a claim.
2. It must only be used where no other remedy is available or suitable.
3. The applicant has a duty to give full and frank disclosure.6
4. The court usually requires the applicant to give a cross-undertaking in damages.

INJUCTION TO PERFORM NEGATIVE AGREEMENT

A perpetual injunction to restrain the breach of a contract is regulated by section 41(e) of
the Specific Relief Act, which provides that a perpetual injunction can not be granted to
prevent the breach of contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced
Section 42 of Specific Relief Act in time in a given contract, there may be affirmative
agreement to do certain act, coupled with a Negative Covenant, express or implied, not to do a
certain other act. Now the fact that the court is unable to compel specific performance of the
affirmative part does not mean that it cannot grant an injunction in respect of the negative part.
It is necessary in this case that the plaintiff has performed its part mentioned in the contract.

6
[Link]

pg. 16
Lumley v. Wagner

FACTS
A a singer , agreed that she would sigh for 12 months at B’s theatre and that she would not
sing elsewhere in the public during that period. Here B cannot obtained specific performance
of the first part of the contract (i.e. to sing at his theatre), but he is entitled to an injunction,
restraining A from singing at other public places during that period. In this case though there
is one contract but contain two parts one is positive and other is negative. The two parts are
independent contracts. In this case court cannot debar itself to give injunction in case of
negative covenant.

JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court has also observed that the jurisdiction to grant an injunction under the
Act is discretionary and must be exercised according to sound principals of law, and ex
debito justito. The plaintiff cannot claim this relief as a matter of right. Before refusing or
granting the injunction, the court must weigh the pros and cons in each case, consider the
facts and circumstances in their proper perspectives, and then exercise its discretion in the
best interest of justice

pg. 17
CONCLUSION

It has been termed as a preventive relief which is granted at the discretion of the court by
Injunction which may be temporary or perpetual. Section 37(1) of Specific Relief Act, deals
with specific Injunctions which are such as are to continue until a specified time or until
further orders of the court, they may be granted at any stage of the suit or proceedings and are
regulated by Civil Procedure Code. For the purpose of clarity both have to be discussed
separately.

An injunction is an equitable remedy and as such attracts the application of the maxim that,
'he who seeks equity must do equity'. Granting of injunction is entirely in the discretion of the
Court, though the discretion is to be sound and reasonably guided by the judicial principles.
The power to grant a injunction is at the discretion of the Court. This discretion, however,
should be exercised reasonably, judiciously and on sound legal principles. Injunction should
not be lightly granted as it adversely affects the other side. The grant of injunction is in nature
of equitable relief and the Court has undoubtedly power to impose such terms and conditions
as it thinks fit. Such conditions, however, must be reasonable so as not to make it impossible
for the party to comply with the same and thereby virtually denying the relief which be would
otherwise be ordinarily entitled to. The general rule is that grant of injunction is a matter of
discretion of the Court and it can not be claimed as of right. However, the discretion has to be
exercised in a judicious manner and in accordance with the provisions relating to the grant of
injunction contained in the Specific Relief Act. It is well settled that, no interim injunction
would be issued if final relief can not be granted. When plaintiff has no personal interest in
the matter, injunction can not be granted.

To conclude injunction means an order of Court by which an individual is required to

perform, or is restrained from performing a particular act. The courts exercise their power to
issue injunctions only when necessity exists. An injunction is generally issued only in cases
where irreparable injury to the rights of an individual would result. It should be apparent to
the court that some act has been performed, or is threatened, that it will produce irreparable

pg. 18
injury to the party seeking the injunction. An injury is generally considered irreparable when
an award of damages cannot adequately compensate it. Loss of profits alone is insufficient to
establish irreparable injury. The potential destruction of property is sufficient. Injunctive
relief is not a matter of right, but its denial is within the discretion of the court.

BOOKS REFERRED –

Law of contract and specific relief by Avtar Singh

Law of contaract and theory (Lexis nexis)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]

pg. 19