What Is Balance Of Convenience?

The court uses the Balance of Convenience principle to determine if an injunction should be granted or denied, based on which party will be harmed more if it is declined.

It provides the rights of both parties a fair consideration and grants the right to a party faced with more inconvenience in hand. The concept is invoked commonly in the context of temporary or interim injunctions.

Importance Of Balance Of Convenience In Legal Disputes

In legal disputes, courts have to decide which direct consequences will pertain to the parties involved. The balance of convenience helps in:

Preventing Irreparable Harm:

This is meant to assure that neither party was to suffer undue damage that could not be compensated later.

Maintaining Fairness:

This involves striking a balance between the conflicting interests of the plaintiff and the defendant.

Preserving The Status Quo:

So instead of continuing the case, allow it to proceed without severely disrupting either party.

Key Elements Of Balance Of Convenience

To assess the balance of convenience, courts consider several factors:

Irreparable Harm

The court will examine whether one party will suffer harm that cannot be compensated through available dollar damages.

Example: If construction or demolition is underway, the changes may be irreversible in property disputes.

Hardship to Both Parties

It looks at the level of inconvenience or hardship that would result from granting or denying the injunction in the cases of the plaintiff and defendant.

Preservation of Rights

The grant or refusal of the injunction is not unjustly disproportionate to the legal right of either party.

Public Interest

The impact that the injunction also has on the public interest is also taken into consideration, with the court in some cases considering the case more especially when the dispute is on a public project or a utility.

Application Of Balance Of Convenience In Temporary Injunctions

A temporary injunction is a court order preventing a party from taking some action until a case is settled. To grant a temporary injunction, courts consider three main factors:

Prima Facie Case

The pliable must present a coast result that has a good chance of success in the final judicature.

Irreparable Injury

An injunction will only be granted if the plaintiff produces evidence that if the injunction had not been granted the plaintiff would have suffered injury that could not be compensated by damages.

Balance Of Convenience

The court has to determine whether the hardships borne by the plaintiffs are greater than those of the defendant.

Also Read : Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment on Temporary Injunction Cases

Landmark Judgments On Balance Of Convenience

Several landmark judgments have clarified the principle of balance of convenience:

Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992)

The court declared in this case that the balance of convenience should tip in favor of the party seeking an injunction if there is a strong prima facie indication of irreparable harm to that party.

Coca-Cola Co. v. Gujarat Bottling Co. (1995)

The Court then emphasized that the interest of protecting irreparably damaged contractual rights must always be weighed.

Veljan Hydrair Ltd. v. Transport Corporation of India Ltd.

The court notes that when deciding on this question, the balance of convenience should favor the less, not more, likely party injured by the court's decision.

Factors Courts Consider When Applying Balance of Convenience

Here are few factors courts always consider when applying balance of convenience:

Urgency Of Relief

A plaintiff might carry the day if he or she is able to show an urgent need for relief, which precludes imminent harm.

Nature Of The Harm

Courts differentiate monetary losses (usually compensatable) from non-monetary losses (e.g., loss of reputation or unique assets).

Conduct Of The Parties

It considers the behavior of both parties before the litigation. Your chances of favorable consideration drop off the less good faith you've exhibited in your party.

Feasibility Of Enforcement

The court then looks at whether the injunction can be enforced practically without unreasonable burden on the party before whom it is sought.

Criticism Of The Balance Of Convenience

While the balance of convenience is a widely used principle, it has some limitations:

Subjectivity:

Judicial interpretation of the assessment of harm and inconvenience may lead to inconsistent results.

Delay in Justice:

If used improperly to stall proceedings, temporary injunctions can lead to the perpetuation of disputes because they prolong them.

Difficulty in Assessment:

The business of quantifying non-monetary harm can be complex.

Importance Of Legal Representation In Balance Of Convenience Cases

The legal representation that is needed in the balance of convenience cases is effective, as these cases are by nature nuanced. Lawyers play a pivotal role in:

• So far, they have presented compelling evidence of irreparable harm.
• Showcase of specific hardships their clients experience.
• To see that the level of attention devoted to the public interest concerns is acceptable.

All cases involving temporary relief require a balance of convenience as a vital principle because justice and fairness can only be granted by considering a balance of convenience.

Conclusion

The Balance of Convenience is a crucial legal principle in determining whether an injunction should be granted or denied. It ensures that no party suffers irreparable harm that cannot be addressed through legal means, maintains fairness in disputes, and helps preserve the status quo while the case progresses. This principle is particularly significant in temporary injunctions, where courts evaluate the urgency, potential harm, and hardship of granting or denying relief. While it plays a vital role in maintaining justice and fairness, the concept can also be subject to criticism due to its subjective nature and the challenges in quantifying harm. Effective legal representation is essential for successfully navigating balance of convenience cases and ensuring that the plaintiff’s and defendant’s rights are fairly considered.

FAQs On Balance of Convenience

Here are some frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the Balance of Convenience principle in legal disputes.

Q1.What is the Balance of Convenience principle in law?

The Balance of Convenience principle helps courts decide whether an injunction should be granted by considering which party will suffer more harm if the injunction is either granted or denied.

Q2.When is a temporary injunction granted?

A temporary injunction is granted when the plaintiff can show a prima facie case, demonstrate irreparable injury, and prove that the balance of convenience favors granting the injunction.

Q3.How does the Balance of Convenience affect the outcome of a legal dispute?

The principle helps ensure that neither party faces disproportionate harm, with the court weighing the potential hardships each party may experience and considering fairness in the outcome.

Q4.What are some key elements considered under the Balance of Convenience?

Courts assess factors such as irreparable harm, the hardship to both parties, preservation of rights, and the impact on the public interest when determining the balance of convenience.

Q5.What are the criticisms of the Balance of Convenience principle?

Some criticisms include subjectivity in judicial interpretation, potential delays in justice due to the use of temporary injunctions, and the complexity of assessing non-monetary harm in disputes.

References:

https://lawbhoomi.com/the-balance-of-convenience-a-detailed-legal-analysis/

https://blog.ipleaders.in/temporary-injunctions-india/#:~:text=Transport%20Corporation%20Ltd.-,v.,defendant%20if%20it%20is%20granted