Suit for injunction for defendant IA

2007(6) SCC 120:-

He who comes into equity must come with clean hands. A court of equity
refuses relief to a plaintiff whose conduct in regard to the subject matter
of the litigation has been improper. This was formerly expressed by the
maxim he who has committed iniquity shall not have equity, and relief
was refused where a transaction was based on the plaintiffs fraud or
misrepresentation, or where the plaintiff sought to enforce a security
improperly obtained, or where he claimed a remedy for a breach of trust
which he had himself procured and whereby he had obtained money.
Later it was said that the plaintiff in equity must come with perfect
property of conduct, or with clean hands.

There is another doctrine which cannot also be lost sight of. The court
would not ordinarily permit a party to pursue two parallel remedies in
respect of the same subject matter.

[See Jai Singh Vs. Union of India and orter, 1977(1) SCC 1].

AIR 2008 SC 646:

It was a fit case where application for injunction filed by the plaintiff was
to be dismissed in the absence of necessary parties to the suit and on
that ground alone the application was dismissed. The high court noted
that it had not gone into the merits of the case and only on the technical
ground as noted above, the application for temporary injunction was
rejected.

It is one thing to say that there does not exist any ambiguity as regards
description of the suit land in the plaint with reference to the boundaries
as mentioned therein, but it is another thing to say that the land in suit
belongs to the respondents. It was for the plaintiffs to prove that the land
in suit formed part of CTS Nos. 4823/a-17. It was not for the defendants
to do so. It was, therefore, not necessary for them to file an application
for appointment of a commissioner nor was it necessary for them to
adduce any independent evidence to establish that the report of the
Advocate commissioner was not correct.

Strong reliance is placed on the following observations of this court in

wander Ltd. Vs Antox india P.Ltd. [ 1990 supp SCC 727] in regard to
grant of temporary injunction usually, the prayer for grant of an
interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of the legal right
asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and
uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on
evidence. The court, at this stage, acts on certain well settled principles
of administration of this form of interlocutory remedy which is both
temporary and discretionary. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it
is stated: is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his
rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages
recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at
the trial. The need for such protection must be weighed against the
corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury
resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal
rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court
must weigh one need against another and determine where the balance
of convenience lies.

2006(5) SCC 282:-

The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction

only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff: (1)
existence of prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of
plaintiffs rights by issue of a temporary injunction;

(2) when the need for protection of plaintiffs rights is compared with or
weighed against the need for protection of defendants rights or likely
infringement of defendants rights, the balance of convenience tilting in
favour of plaintiff; and (3) clear possibility of irreparable injury being
caused to plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition,
temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant
such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiffs conduct is free from
blame and he approaches the court with clean hands.
2008(11) SCC 1:-

While considering an application for grant of injunction, the court will

not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto,
viz., existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the
parties. Grant of injunction is an equitable relief. A person who had kept
quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the properties
exclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction. The
court will not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one.
We are not however, oblivious of the fact that grant or refusal of
injunction has serious consequence depending upon the nature thereof.
The courts dealing with such matters must make all endeavors to protect
the interest of the parties. For the said purpose, application of mind on
the part of the courts is imperative. Contentions raised by the parties
must be determined objectively.

2008(10) SCC 97:-

It is trite that the rule of pleadings postulate that a plaint must contain
material facts. When the plaint read as a whole does not disclose
material facts giving rise to cause of action which can be entertained by a
civil court, it may be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the code.
Similarly, a plea of bar to jurisdiction of a civil court has to be considered
having regard to the contentions raised in the plaint.

Karnataka high court ILR 1990 KAR 3148, ILR 1989 KAR 962

A defendant can in appropriate case claim interim injunction against the

other party in the same suit provided the defendants claim to relief of
injunction arises out of the plaintiffs cause of action or is incidental to it.
It is only in cases where the defendants claim to relief arises out of the
plaintiffs cause of action or is incidental to it that he can ask for a
temporary injuncition against the plaintiff.