Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment on Temporary Injunction Cases

Injunction primarily means a judicial order where a party is required to do or restrain himself from doing a particular act. Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the rules concerning temporary injunctions.

To understand the interpretation of temporary injunctions, following are the landmark judgement:

Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs. Antox India P. Ltd. (1990)

In this case, the Court provided the principles that govern temporary or interim injunctions:

• Purpose of Injunctions: Generally, the main purpose of a temporary injunction is to protect the plaintiff from actual harm resulting from the violation of some rights. This protection is warranted when monetary compensation alone would not be enough if the plaintiff's claims are proved later.
• Balancing Competing Interests: An injunction touches very delicate balances between the need of the plaintiff to protect himself, on one hand, and the right of the defendant not to be deprived of exercising its legal rights, on the other hand. Each party should be prevented from suffering harm that money cannot sufficiently cure.
• Preserve the Status Quo: The interim injunction is used to preserve the status quo to maintain the existing state of affairs, especially when the plaintiff has a prima facie case. To understand more about what 'status quo' means in legal terms, read our detailed explanation in Status Quo in Law.
• Defendant's Conduct: The Court considers whether the defendant has already initiated the activity in question or is about to. The analysis differs depending on whether the defendant is already engaged in the disputed action.

Dalpat Kumar And Anr. vs. Prahlad Singh And Ors. (1991)

The Court in this case held that an order of interim or temporary injunction is strictly a discretionary relief subject to certain conditions. In short, the takeaway from this judgement has been as follows:

• Temporary injunctions are granted in order to preserve the disputed property until the legal rights could be determined.
• According to the judgments delivered by the Court, three conditions apply for the granting of an injunction:
  • Prima Facie Case: There must be a clear case on the face of it, supported by evidence, that a prima facie case exists such as to require trial. The Court makes a distinction between “prima facie title” that will demand stronger evidence at trial.
  • Irreparable Injury: The Court must be convinced that without an injunction, the plaintiff will suffer severe damage that cannot be compensated in terms of money.
  • Balance of Convenience: The Court measures the hurt caused to each party. Would the grant of an injunction cause greater hurt to the defendant than withholding it would have done to the plaintiff? This is generally what Courts favours as preferring a status quo that seems most just.
• While injunctions are possible in cases seeking to overturn previous rulings (e.g., based on fraud), the Court urged caution. The Court will carefully consider the actions of the plaintiff, potential harm to both sides, and the adequacy of potential compensation.

Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors (1993)

This Court interpreted that the interim orders of injunction should not be given easily. Following are the key holdings of the Court:

• Discretionary Power: Granting an injunction is not a matter of right for the plaintiff. It is a discretionary power of the Court, to be exercised only when necessary to prevent irreparable loss or damage to the plaintiff during the suit.
• Maintaining Status Quo: In the case of granting a temporary injunction, the purpose served is to preserve the status quo - things as they exist at the moment. It shall be granted after serious consideration and applicability of the principles of law.
• A strong prima facie case: The Court, before the grant of the order for an injunction, must be satisfied that the plaintiff has a strong case, including the merit of the case and if the balance of convenience favours the plaintiff. The Court also needs to ascertain if the refusal of an injunction would lead to irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
• Ex Parte Injunctions: The Court should be doubly cautious before granting an injunction without notice to the opposite party (ex parte).
• Recording Reasons: At the time of granting an ex parte injunction, the Court has to record its reasons for doing so. It is not a mere formality but a statutory mandate from the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976.
• Limited Duration: Ex parte injunctions must be of limited duration, typically until the next motion day. This further reinforces the urgency of circumstances that warrant an ex parte injunction and provides the defendant with the earliest opportunity for a hearing.
• Procedure for Interim Injunctions: The Court clearly outlined the procedure that should be followed in dealing with interim injunction applications in the context of cases relating to demolition orders:
  • Serving notice to the Corporation: The plaintiff must be directed to deliver a copy of the application, plaint and such documents to the Corporation's counsel or competent authority. The Court will decide only after both parties are heard.
  • Exceptional Circumstances: If the Court believes that waiting to hear from the Corporation would defeat the purpose of the injunction, it must record its reasoning. The injunction should be limited to two weeks, during which the Corporation must be notified and given the opportunity to respond.
  • No further construction: The ex-parte injunction should restrain the plaintiff from constructing further on that property before the application for the injunction is fully resolved.

The holding of the Court illustrates a balanced approach toward protecting the interest of those whose structures may face demolition and that of the public at large in furthering planned urban development. The outlined procedures are highly reflective of fairness and due process despite the urgency of the situation that calls for urgent action.

M/S Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & Ors vs. The Coca Cola Co. & Ors (1995)

The principles of temporary injunctions laid down by the Court in this case are as follows:

• A Court has the discretionary power to grant interim or interlocutory injunctions to protect the plaintiff from damages during legal proceedings. To that end, the Court considers the circumstances of each case and has no duty to issue an injunction just because a party asks for one.
• There are three primary factors which the Court considers when determining whether to issue an interim injunction:
  • Prima facie case: The plaintiff must have a prima facie case, that is, a good case at the outset and an actual reasonable chance of success at trial.
  • Balance of convenience: This demands the Court to weigh in the balance the possible harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is refused against the probable harm to the defendant if it is issued. The Court will favour the party who is likely to experience more substantial harm if the injunction is not issued.
  • Irreparable injury: The plaintiff has to demonstrate that the harm which would be suffered when the injunction is denied to him would not be financially or otherwise compensated.
• The Court may require the plaintiff to provide an undertaking to compensate the defendant for any losses they might incur as a result of the injunction if the defendant ultimately prevails at trial. This ensures that the defendant is protected from financial harm if the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted.
• The conduct of the parties seeking relief is an important factor. The party requesting an injunction or asking for an existing injunction to be lifted must have acted fairly and honestly. If the party seeking relief has acted in a bad or wrongdoing manner or brought about the situation, there is a higher likelihood that the Court will refuse relief.

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd (1999)

In this case, the Court held the following:

• The Court emphasised that temporary injunctions, whether statutory or based on equitable considerations, are discretionary and not granted automatically. The Court explained that the fundamental principle behind granting an injunction is to maintain the status quo and safeguard the plaintiff from infringement of their rights, especially when monetary compensation would be insufficient.
• The Court referred to its decision in Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India P. Ltd. (supra), highlighting the importance of balancing the need of the plaintiff for protection against the need of the defendant to exercise their legal rights.
• The Court listed specific considerations for granting interlocutory injunctions, including:
  • Duty of the Court to remain impartial and refrain from expressing opinions on the case's merits, especially in the early stages.
  • Assessing if damages would be an adequate remedy.
  • Protecting the plaintiff's rights without disregarding potential harm to the defendant.
  • Acknowledging differences in the strength of each party's case.
  • Maintaining flexibility and avoiding rigid rules.
  • Considering if the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is denied.
  • Evaluating the balance of convenience or inconvenience.
  • Determining if the injunction would impact public interest in a way that cannot be compensated.

Seema Arshad Zaheer & Ors vs. Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai & Ors. (2006)

The discretion of the Court to grant a temporary injunction is exercised only in cases where the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff :

1. existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, requiring protection of the rights of the plaintiff by issuance of a temporary injunction;
2. when the need for protection of the rights of the plaintiff is weighed against the need for protection of the rights of the defendant or likely infringement of the rights of the defendant, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of plaintiff; and
3. it is clear that there exists a possibility of irreparable injury being caused to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not issued.

Additionally, being an equitable relief, the discretion for granting such relief would be exercised only when the conduct of the plaintiff is free from all blame and he approaches the Court with clean hands.

Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (2024)

In this case, the Court established important guidelines for temporary or interim injunctions, especially concerning media platforms and journalists. These were:

• Three-Fold Test: The Court insisted that in cases dealing with journalistic activity, the three-fold test consisting of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm must not be mechanically applied.
• Effects on Journalism: Interim orders against journalistic work would prejudicially affect both parties and would also cause injury to public interest.
• Detailed Reasoning: When granting interim relief, the Court must provide thorough reasoning for how the three-fold test applies to the specific case, rather than just summarising previous cases.
• Additional Factors for Ex-Parte Injunctions: Other factors, here, considered by the Court are:
  • The potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiff
  • Denying the injunction would cause even greater injustice
  • The timing of the plaintiff's notice of the issue
  • Whether the plaintiff has acquiesced, which could render an ex parte injunction inappropriate
  • Whether the plaintiff acted in good faith in applying for the injunction.
  • Whether the ex parte injunction should be limited in time
• Balance of rights: A Court stressed the need to delicately balance the right to free speech with rights to reputation and privacy particularly in defamation cases.
• The Bonnard Standard: The Court noted that pre- trial injunctions could significantly affect the author's right to free speech and the public's right to know. It suggests that they should only be granted for content that is malicious or obviously false.
• Dangers of Interim Injunctions: The Court warned that interim injunctions can preemptively silence material before any allegations are proven, potentially misused to limit free speech.