Have you ever considered what might happen if someone attempted to destroy or infringe on your building or property? What are the possible claims you might submit to the appropriate court to prevent the damage or infringement of your property? A temporary injunction[1] is a judgment or order issued by a court against one or several of the sides to refrain from undertaking, or less commonly to perform, the certain stipulated act or deeds.

If someone goes to the Appropriate Tribunal for an Injunction Order, will the Tribunal approve all of that individual's claims? The process of obtaining an injunction, on the other hand, is to change or preserve the "status quo," which is entirely dependent on the circumstances or complaints of the case. The parties to the litigation might seek a Temporary, Fixed, or Compulsory Injunction.

Nevertheless, it is not a privilege of the plaintiffs, but an injunction is part of the equitable remedies that the Appropriate Court may give, and the judgment is arbitrary. Let us look at what the word "injunction" means in the Specific Relief Act and how it is used in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Order 39: Temporary Injunctions:

What exactly refers to a temporary injunction?

Temporary injunctions are addressed under Section 37, Specific Relief Act of 1963. Temporary injunctions are in effect for a certain period of moment or till the court makes another ruling. They are authorized at either stage of a lawsuit and are controlled by the Civil Procedure Code (1908).

The basic rationale for imposing an injunction is to safeguard a person's or property's interests in the case till the ultimate verdict is made.

The following factors are taken into account while imposing such an injunction:

1. whenever a side has a prima facie lawsuit[2]?
2. If the proportion of advantage favors the complainant?
3. Is it conceivable that the claimant might experience irreversible injury before the judgement is issued?

The period of that kind of an injunction is determined by the court. In the case of Union of India v. Bhuvneshwar Prasad[3], this type of injunction was also made accessible.

The following are some instances of Civil Procedure Code situations when a temporary injunction may be granted:

1. When any property in question in a dispute is probable to be wasted, damaged, or diverted by one of the litigants, or illegally disposed in enforcement of a ruling; or
2. Whenever the respondent intends to evacuate or dispose his property in attempt to deceive his creditors; or
3. To prevent the defendant from violating a contract or inflicting any other injury in all circumstances;
4. Whenever, according to the Specific Relief Act Sections 38[4] and 41[5], no persistent or mandatory injunction may be granted;
5. Where to stay, the execution of a sequence for the transmission, revocation, rank reduction, obligatory superannuation, rejection, expulsion, or other cessation of offering of any individual assigned to public service and publish in linkage with Affairs of state, such as any person employed of any corporation or company-owned or governed by the State Government;
6. Whenever to halt any current or planned disciplinary measures against any person allocated to the government service and to publish in conjunction with the State's business, comprising any employee of a company possessed or managed by the State's government; or to restrict any election;
7. Any injunction imposed in contravention of these provisions shall be null and void.
8. Except in cases where the aim of obtaining the injunction would seem to be defeated by the lag even once the injunction is issued, the Court shall give the adverse party with immediate notice of the request:
   
   1. Provided, however, that if an injunction is requested to be granted without notice to the opposing party, the Court notes the grounds for its belief that delay would undermine the aim of issuing the injunction and requires the applicant to:
      
      1. immediately after the ruling issuing the injunction, give to or convey to the other party by registered mail,
         
         1. a copy of the injunction request, as well as a copy of an affidavit in favor of the request;
         2. a copy of a complaint; and
         3. a copy of the petitioner's supporting documentation;
      2. Must file an affidavit stating that the aforementioned copies were delivered and mailed on the date such injunction is imposed or a day immediately following that day.

The court must, however, rule on such cases within thirty days after issuing an injunction, and if it is unable to do so, it must explain why.

If a party makes a false or deceptive statement inside a request for just a temporary injunction or an affidavit supporting such a request, the Civil Procedure Code further specifies that the Court may dismiss, vary, or set aside the order at the request of every party who is unsatisfied with the decision.

Further, where an injunction has been issued after one party has been afforded a chance to be heard, this same order cannot be discharged, diverse, or set aside just at the request of that party unless the discharge, variation, and set-aside has been required by a change of circumstances or even when the Court is convinced that the order had also caused a certain party, difficulty as well as hardship.

An injunction issued against a business has the same legal force as if it were issued directly against the individuals who are the company's members or officers, thereby halting any and all of their individual acts.

According to the Civil Procedure Code, the following Injunctions between parties were issued in relation to injunctions:

The authority to order an interim sale[6]:
The Court, upon the application of any party to a litigation, may order a sale of any moveable property that forms the subject of a case or that is attached prior to a judgement in a lawsuit, which really is prone to sudden and natural decline, as to which may otherwise be lost or destroyed be desirable to be sold off for any other just and sufficient reason.

Detention, preservation, examination, and so on of the lawsuit's subject matter[7]:

1. A motion to dismiss may be filed by any participant in the proceedings if the person so requests and the circumstances warrant deems appropriate, the Court may:
   
   1. Issue ordaining the custody, storage, or inspection of any property involved in the proceedings that may emerge as a result of them;
   2. Empower any such person to act for all or any of the aforementioned reasons;
   3. Approve the taking of samples, making of observations, or testing of experiments for all or any of the aforementioned reasons that seem essential or beneficial for acquiring complete data, proof, or proof of something.
       
2. The regulations regulating procedures' actual carrying out must apply to a person entitled to enter under this rule mutatis mutandis (with appropriate changes but without altering the principal matter at issue).
    

Following notification, an application for such orders will be made:

1. A defendant may move for an order of protection under Rule 6[8] anywhere at any time after the complaint is filed.
2. The defendant may apply at any point following its debut for a comparable request.
3. On to an application for an order under Rules 6 or 7[9], the Court should give direct notice to an opposing party before issuing the order, unless it appears that delaying the order will defeat its purpose.

When a party may be given instant control of land that is the subject of a lawsuit:
If a lawsuit involves the party in ownership of property subject to government revenue or a tenure able to sue to sale and the party throughout possession of these land or tenure does not pay the Government income or even the rent due to proprietor, as the instance may be, and the land as well as tenure has been consequently ordered to be put up for sale, any other party to the lawsuit asserting to have an involvement in these kind of land or tenure could, upon payment of a revenue or rent due before the sale, purchase the land or tenure from the government or the proprietor (an interim payment),

Deposit of money and other items in court:
If money or other deliverable property is at issue in a lawsuit, and one party admits that this really holds such money, or other deliverable property as trustee for another party, or claims that it belongs or is owed to that other party, then the Court may order that such money or other deliverable property be placed in court or delivered to the last-named party, together with or without safety, subject to the terms of the judgement.

Case Laws:

1. Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee[10]:
   The Supreme Court has established the presumption of proof in prima facie cases. It does not include complex issues of truth or law that need extensive debate to resolve.
   
   In addition, the Plaintiff must come to court without any dirt on his or her hands. By concealing material facts and evidence, he forfeits his right to injunctive relief, and the other reasons of convenience, irreparable loss, and irreparable injury should be disregarded.
    
2.  In Prakash Singh v. State of Haryana[11], the court declared, "The Court has explained that Prima Facie does not entail that a Plaintiff/Applicant must have a complete proven case in his favour that would be victorious in all likelihoods." It means that the applicant or plaintiff has a claim that can't be dismissed easily. It draws attention to topics that may be the subject of independent debate.
    
3. It was held in the case of Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Satyanarayana Singh[12] that showing the Plaintiff/Applicant has a plausible claim enough to warrant a trial. Reasonable doubt about the existence of their entitlement and the status quo must be maintained until the case is fully adjudicated.
   
   Is there any irreversible harm: Furthermore, the petitioner must show that they will be damaged irreparably if the injunction also isn't granted. The Court agrees that the Plaintiff needs to be protected from any potential harm. If the extent of the damage cannot be quantified in monetary terms, it will be deemed irreversible.
   
   However, unlike "irreparable," which implies the hurt can never be fixed, "irreparable harm" means exactly the opposite. A bodily injury is assumed to be the source of pain. To be more precise, the kind of losses for which monetary damages would be inadequate. It is deemed irreparable if there is no clear monetary standard by which damages may be determined.
    
4. Just at stage of having to pass a temporary injunction order, for instance on an application for grant of ad interlocutory injunction under Rule 1[13] or 2[14] of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code, this same competent Court would likely have to form its viewpoint on the availability of an initial case, the balance of comfort, and the irreparable injury," as stated by the Supreme Court in Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi[15]
    
5. In Best Sellers Retail India (P) Ltd. vs. Aditya Nirla Nuvo Ltd.[16], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "yet, the settled principle of law is that even where the prima facie case is in favour of the plaintiff, the Court will refuse temporary injunction if the plaintiff's injury suffered as a result of refusal of temporary injunction which was not irreparable."
   
   The applicant must show that the balance of convenience tips in their favour by describing the injury, difficulty, or irritation they would face in the event when the injunction was denied. The balance between convenience comes into play when there is a question regarding whether one party or both have access to adequate remedies in damages.
    
6. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court highlighted the question of balance of convenience in Bikash Chandra Deb versus Vijaya Minerals Pvt. Ltd.[17] The Court must give preference to the concept of convenience, but that does not mean that the scales will necessarily tip in favour of one party. The parties need to find a middle ground, but it can't be too one-sided.
    
7. It was decided in Anwar Elahi vs Vinod Misra and Anr. 1995[18], that "balance of convenience entails comparable damage or discomfort." It is possible that the consequences of not issuing the injunction will be higher than those of permitting it. Using this method, the Court will weigh the potential for serious harm to the application, and the injunction is granted to the opposition party.'

Conclusion:
Given the above, it is clear that no party has an absolute right to seek a temporary injunction, and the Court cannot deny such a request without good reason. Injunctive relief is a form of equitable redress that can be used to precept "he who desires equity must do equity." The Court has broad power to issue or deny an injunction.

The Court's discretion is demonstrated by the aforementioned principles, and depends on the particulars of each instance. It is not a right to the remedy, no matter how compelling the applicant's argument is. The authority to issue an injunction must consequently be used with extreme caution, monitoring, and care.

Bibliography:

1. https://www.britannica.com/story/what-is-an-injunction
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/183635/
3. Code of Civil Procedure by S.C. Sarkar and P.C. Sarkar, 12th edition
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/951956/
5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1930680
6. http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=513791472000
7. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/337165/
8. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130617577/
9. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1741961/
10. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2409/
11. CPC Approach of Trail Court by Adv. S.L. Deshpande and Adv. Jayant Jaibhave, edition 2016
12. mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/Title%20NO.119(As%20Per%20Workshop% 20L is t %20title%20no119%20pdf).pdf

End-Notes:

1. Order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC
2. a legal term or a legal claim which is made when the prosecution has enough evidence to proceed with a trial of judgement and to prove that the defendant is guilty. The term is derived from a Latin word which means, "at first sight" or "at first view"
3. Original Application No. 113 of 2004
4. 38. Perpetual injunction when granted:
   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
5. 41. Injunction when refused: An injunction cannot be granted:
   
   1. 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;
   2. to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought;
   3. to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body;
   4. to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter;
   5. to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced;
   6. to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance;
   7. to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced;
   8. when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust;
   9. when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the court;
   10. when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter
6. Order 39, Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
7. Order 39: Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
8. Order 39 Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908: The authority to order an interim sale
9. Order 39: Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Detention, preservation, examination, and so on of the lawsuit's subject matter
10. 1958 AIR 79 SCR 514
11. 2002 (4) Civil L.J.71 (P.H.)
12. Suit No. 132 of 1973
13. Order 39, Rule 1 provides for cases in which temporary injunction may be granted. (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit.
14. Order 39 (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto
15. Appeal (civil) 10906 of 1996
16. (2012) 6 SCC 792
17. 2005 (1) CHN 582
18. IVAD Delhi 576, 60 (1995) DLT 752, 1995 (35) DRJ 341

Also Read:

• Temporary Injunction O-39
• Temporary Injunctions In Matter Of Intellectual Property
• What are The remedies available when Order of Injunction is Breached or not complied with?

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Ena Shrivastava

Authentication No: FB305069078174-19-0223