What Are The Types of Injunctions In The Indian LawBy sunipun - February 26, 2017

This article is written by Rishabh Pandey from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University,
New Delhi.Introduction

An injunction is a prohibitive writ issued by a court of equity, at the suit of a party

complainant, directed to a party defendant in the action, or to a party made a defendant for
that purpose, forbidding the latter to do some act, or to permit his servants or agents to do
some act, which he is threatening or attempting to commit, or restraining him in the
continuance thereof, such act being unjust and inequitable, injurious to the plaintiff, and not

such as can be adequately redressed by an action fit law.[1]

For example, if it so happens that a person is demolishing a building you have possible
claims on, you may ask the competent court to order such person to not demolish the
building until the trial for the claim of the building is complete and judgement goes in his
favour.

The law of injunction has been provided for by the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter, the
Act), and is also regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in India.

Types of Injunctions in the Indian Law

Generally speaking, there are two types of injunctions under the act [2], as mentioned below:

1. Temporary Injunction
2. Perpetual/Permanent Injunction

Both the types of injunctions are discussed below.

Temporary Injunction

Temporary injunctions, as the name suggests, are the injunctions that are given for
a specific period of time or until the court gives further order regarding the matter in
concern. They can be obtained during any stage of the trial and are regulated by the Code of

Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908[3]:

• Section 94: The section provides for supplemental proceedings, to enable the court to
prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. Section 94(c) states that a court may
grant temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty
thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold. Section
94(e) of the Code enables the court to make interlocutory orders as may appear to it to
 be just and convenient.

• Section 95: If it is found by the court that there were no sufficient grounds to grant
the injunction, or the plaintiff is defeated in the suit, the court may award reasonable
compensation to the defendant on his application claiming such compensation.

• Order XXXIX:
• Rule 1: It enlists the situations when a court may grant temporary injunction.
These are:

1. Any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by

any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or
2. the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to
defrauding his creditors,
3. the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the
plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit.

• Rule 2: It provides that an interim injunction may be granted for restraining the
defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind to the
plaintiff.
• Rule 3: It states that a court shall direct a notice of application to the opposite party,
before granting the injunction to the plaintiff. However, if it seems to the court that the
purpose of the injunction would be defeated by the delay, it may not provide the
notice.
• Rule 4: It provides for vacation of already granted temporary injunction.
• Rule 5: It states that an injunction directed to a corporation is binding not only on the
corporation itself, but also on all members and officers of the corporation whose
personal action the injunction seeks to restrain.

In the M. Gurudas and Ors. case[4], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has opined, “while
considering an application for injunction, the Court would pass an order thereupon having
regard to prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.”

1. Prima Facie Case:

Prima Facie literally means, on the face of it. In Martin Burn Ltd. vs. R.N. Banerjee[5],
while discussing a the meaning of the ‘prima facie’ case, the court said:

“A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to
be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed. While
determining whether a prima facie case had been made out the relevant consideration is
whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not
whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence.”

Prima facie case is a must to be eligible to obtain a temporary injunction. However, it is not
sufficient and temporary injunction cannot be granted if the damage that will be caused if the

injunction is not given is not irreparable.[6]

2. Irreparable Injury:

‘Irreparable injury’ means such injury which cannot be adequately remedied by damages. The
remedy by damages would be inadequate if the compensation ultimately payable to the
plaintiff in case of success in the suit would not place him in the position in which he was

before injunction was refused.[7]

3. Balance of Convenience:

In the case of Anwar Elahi[8], the court has clearly explained the meaning of ‘balance of
convenience’. According to the court:

“Balance of convenience means that comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to

issue from withholding the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from
granting it. In applying this principle, the Court has to weigh the amount of substantial
mischief that is likely to be done to the applicant 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.”

Permanent Injunction

A permanent injunction can be granted by the court by passing a decree made at the hearing
and upon the merits of the suit. Once such decree is passed, the defendant is permanently
prohibited from the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would be

contrary to the rights of the plaintiff.[9]

When can a permanent injunction be granted?

A permanent injunction may be granted:

a. To the plaintiff in a suit to prevent a breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether

implicit or explicit.[10] However, in a case where such an obligation arises out of a contract,

the court follows the rules as specified by Chapter II of the Act.[11] Chapter II, under Section 9
provides that a person may claim relief in respect to a contract, by pleading in his defense,
any of the ground available to him under any law relating to contracts.

b. In a case where the plaintiff invades or threatens to invade the the plaintiff’s right to, or
enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a permanent injunction where:

1. The defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;

2. there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be
caused, by the invasion;
3. the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
4. the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings. [12]

Mandatory Injunction

If the court finds it necessary and within its capability, to compel the performance of an act,
to prevent the breach of an obligation, it may do so granting a mandatory injunction to the

plaintiff, compelling the defendant to perform the requisite acts.[13]

Damages In Lieu of, or in Addition to Injunction

If the plaintiff claims for any additional damages along with the injunction sought for, either
perpetual or mandatory, or in substitution of the said injunction, the court may award him

such damages, if it thinks fit[14]. If no damages have been claimed, the court may allow the

plaintiff to make the required amendments to the plaint and claim damages [15].

However, it is highly recommended to claim damages in the plaint before submitting it, as
permission for further amendments rests solely at the discretion of the court.

The dismissal of a suit to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favor of the plaintiff

bars his right to sue for damages for such breach.[16]

Injunction to Perform Negative Agreement

The court can grant an injunction to not do certain acts, which are prohibited by the contract
to do. The court may do so even if it is unable to compel the performance of the affirmative
terms of the contract, i.e. the terms that requires the defendant to do (perform) certain acts.
However, it is subject to the fact, whether the plaintiff has performed the terms of the
contract binding on him or not. Non performance by the plaintiff dis-entitles him from

obtaining such an injunction.[17]

Case Laws Regarding Permanent Injunction

In the case of Jujhar Singh vs. Giani Talok Singh[18] where a permanent injunction was
sought for by a son to prevent his father who happened to be the Karta of the Hindu
Undivided Family (HUF), from selling the HUF property was set aside. It was not maintainable
because the son, also a coparcener, had got the remedy of challenging the sale and getting it
set aside in a suit subsequent to the completion of the sale.

On the other hand, granting the injunction sought would allow the son to use the injunction to
prevent the father from selling the property even if he is compelled to do so, due to legal
necessities.

Where in the case of Cotton Corporation Of India vs. United Industrial Bank, an
injunction was sought for to restrain the defendants from presenting a winding-up petition
under the Companies Act, 1956 or under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the court
dismissed the petition as it was not competent to grant, as a relief, a temporary injunction
restraining a person from instituting a proceeding in a court not subordinate to it.

The court here was of the view that if a perpetual injunction cannot be granted for the subject
matter of the case under Section 41(b) of the act, ipso facto temporary injunction cannot be

granted.[19]

Grounds for Rejection of an Application for Injunction

On the following grounds, an injunction cannot be granted:

1. To restraint a person from prosecuting a pending judicial proceeding, unless it is to

prevent multiplicity of the proceeding.
2. To restraint a person from instituting or prosecuting a judicial proceeding in a court,
where the injunction is sought from a court subordinate to that court.
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 (Illustration: a contract between a master and servant, requiring the servant
to render personal services to the master cannot be specifically enforced by the master
or the servant. Hence, an injunction cannot be granted in this situation)
6. Where it is not reasonably clear that an act it nuisance, to prevent such an act on the
ground of nuisance.
7. To prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced, as the general
rule is that an acquiescence is an implied consent by remaining silent.
8. Where except in the case of breach of trust, equally efficacious relief can certainly be
 obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding.
9. When the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to dis-entitle him to
the assistance of the court.
10.When the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. [20]

What are your views on this? Feel free to comment below & share the article.

Reference:

[1] Black’s Law Dictionary

[2] Sections 36 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[3] Section 37(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[4] M. Gurudas and Ors. Vs. Rasaranjan and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3275

[5] 1958 AIR 79, 1958 SCR 514

[6] M/S Best Sellers Retail(I)P.Ltd vs M/S Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.& Ors (2012) 6 SCC 792

[7] Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Satyanarayan Singh, (1974) 40 Cut
LT 336

[8] Anwar Elahi vs Vinod Misra And Anr. 1995 IVAD Delhi 576, 60 (1995) DLT 752, 1995 (35)
DRJ 341

[9] Section 37 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[10] Section 38(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[11] Section 38(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[12] Section 38(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[13] Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[14] Section 40(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[15] Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[16] Section 40(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[17] Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

[18] AIR 1987 P H 34

[19] 1983 AIR 1272, 1983 SCR (3) 962

[20] Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

India: Law Of Injunction: Temporary Injunction

Last Updated: 13 August 2013

Article by Puneet Garg
Singh & Associates
Under India Legal System, the law relating to injunction has been provided in the Specific Relief Act,
1963. Injunction is categorized in two form i.e. Permanent Injunction and Temporary Injunction. Section
37 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that "temporary Injunction 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."
The procedure for seeking temporary injunction has been provided under Order XXXIX of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. However, an injunction being discretionary equitable relief cannot be granted
when equally efficacious relief is obtainable in any other usual mode or proceeding.
In Agricultural Produce Market Committee Case1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "a
temporary injunction can be granted only if the person seeking injunction has a concluded right,
capable of being enforced by way of injunction."
The Hon'ble Apex Court through catena of judgments like landmark judgment in Gujarat Bottling Co.
Ltd. Case2, held that the Court needs to follow certain guidelines while considering an application for
grant of temporary injunction, some of which are briefly stated hereunder:
• The applicant seeking relief of temporary injunction shall have to establish a prima facie case in
his favour. For this purpose, the Court will not examine the merits of the case rather only the
basic facts on which it is established that the applicant has a prima facie case to contest.
Thereafter the applicant also has to establish that the allegations / averments made in the
application on which the temporary injunction is sought are plausible.
• The court will also examine the conduct of the applicant and such conduct needs to be
examined even at the stage where the application for setting aside an order under Order XXXIX
Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed.
• The court has to examine the balance of convenience i.e. the balance of comparative loss
caused to the applicant and the respondent in the case of not passing the order.
• The court will first of all will examine what is the extent of loss that would be caused to the
applicant if the order is not passed and also whether it is reparable by monetary compensation
i.e. by payment of cost. Then it will examine the loss suffered by respondent if the order is
passed and thereupon it has to see which loss will be greater and irreparable. The party who
would suffer greater loss would be said to be having balance of convenience in his favour and
accordingly, the court will pass or refuse to pass the order.
• The court has the power also to ask the party to deposit security for compensation or to give an
undertaking for the payment of the compensation, if ordered.
It is to be understood that relief of temporary injunction cannot be sought for some right which would
arise in future. Similarly, an injunction cannot be obtained to restrain a party from filing a suit. In
Seema Arshad Zaheer Case3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicated the salient features of prima
facie case as under:
"The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following
requirements are made out by the plaintiff: (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating
protection of the plaintiff's rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of
the plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of the defendant's
rights or likely infringement of the defendant's rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of the
plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to the 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 plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he
approaches the court with clean hands."
However, in Best Sellers Retail India (P) Ltd. Case4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that
prima facie case alone is not sufficient to grant injunction and held that:
"Yet, the settled principle of law is that even where prima facie case is in favour of the plaintiff, the
Court will refuse temporary injunction if the injury suffered by the plaintiff on account of refusal of
temporary injunction was not irreparable."
Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for ex-parte temporary injunction in
the cases of extreme urgency. However, Rule 3 does not stipulate a separate application for ex-parte
injunction rather such an application should be a part of an application for a bi-parte temporary
injunction and in such application an urgency shall be shown by the applicant so as to warrant the
passing of an ex-parte injunction/order. However, such an order has to be temporary. The essential
safeguards in this regard are briefly stated as under:
• The matter should be urgent and overwhelming.
• The other elements for the grant of temporary injunction order as explained in the Gujarat
Bottling case shall be existing.
• The court shall record reasons for the grant of exparte order.
• It is the duty of the applicant to serve a notice to the other party after the order has been
passed and such notice shall be coupled with a copy of the application, the plaint, the affidavit
and any other document which were filed in support of the application. Upon serving such
notice, the applicant shall on the same day of the order or on the next day file an affidavit of his
having served such a notice.
• Under Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is a mandate for the Court
that after passing such an ex-parte order, it shall continue with the bi-parte proceedings and
shall dispose of the application within 30 days. However, the said 30 days period is not the
upper limit for ex-parte orders i.e. the ex-parte order will not get automatically vacated upon the
lapse of 30 days rather it can further be extended beyond 30 days in extreme cases.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Case5, inter alia observed the under mentioned
guidelines for grant of temporary injunction besides others:
• Where irreparable or extremely serious injury will be caused to the applicant, ex-parte order can
be passed;
• The court shall examine the time when the plaintiff got notice of the act complained;
• If the plaintiff has acquiesced to the conduct of the respondent then ex-parte temporary
injunction shall not be passed;
• The applicant shall be acting in utmost good faith; and
• Such an order shall be for a temporary period.

Conclusion
In view of the aforesaid, it can be concluded that grant of temporary injunction cannot be claimed by
the party as a matter of right nor can be denied by the Court arbitrarily. However, the discretion to be
exercised by the Court is guided by the principles mentioned hereinabove and depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The party seeking relief not only has to establish prima facie case but also
the irreparable loss that would be caused in case of denial to grant relief and that the balance of
convenience lies in his favour. Thus rational behind the provision of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Gurudas and Ors.6, can be
summarized as "While considering an application for injunction, the Court would pass an
order thereupon having regard to prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable
injury".
Footnotes
1 Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Girdharbhai Ramjibhai Chhaniyara – AIR 1997 SC 2674
2 Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Coca Cola Co. – AIR 1995 SC 2372
3 Seema Arshad Zaheer & Ors. Vs, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. – (2006) 5 Scale
263
4 Best Sellers Retail India (P) Ltd. vs. Aditya Nirla Nuvo Ltd. – (2012 ) 6 SCC 792
5 Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das – (1994) 4 SCC 225
6 M. Gurudas and Ors. Vs. Rasaranjan and Ors. – AIR 2006 SC 3275

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice
should be sought about your specific circumstan

Author Y.Srinivasa Rao Judge

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF INJUNCTIONS

(Part- II)
Introductory: During 14th century, England had two distinct court systems. These are well known as
‘ Law Courts’ and ‘Equity Courts’. America’s court system drew heavily on its English origins. The law of
injunction in our country is having its origin in the Equity Jurisprudence of England from which we have
inherited the present administration of law. England too in its turn borrowed it from the Roman Law
wherein it was known as Interdict. The Roman Interdicts were categorized in three parts such as
prohibitory, restitutory and exhibitory. Law courts were divided by their development of the common
law. Equity courts had a more flexible approach to cases and provided for broad remedies. In our
country, the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides a large number of remedial aspects of Law. This Act came
in force in the replacement of earlier Act of 1877. Injunction is a judicial process by which one who has
invaded or is threatening to invade the rights, legal or equitable, of another, is ordered to refrain from
doing, or to do a particular act or thing.
• An injunction is an equitable remedy; the party , who seeks relief, must come with clean hands.
• Judicial process operating in personam,and requiring the person to whom it is directed to do or refrain
from doing a particular thing.”
• Interdicts were “certain forms of words, by which the Praetor (the chief judicial magistrate of Rome)
either commanded or prohibited something to be done;
• Chancery became a court of law (which occurred c. 1380-1400 A.D.).
• Chancery and its development into a court is another aspect to understand the history of injunctions.
• Injunctions appeared in Chancery as early as the 1390’s. Injunction cases in Chancery’s early period
(from the 1390’s to about 1500) were quite diverse, involving such disparate areas of law as real
property, personal property, tort, and Contract.
Case-Law- 1439 – Injunction Suit- At Common Law.
Defendant told the plaintiff that he desired to marry her, and asked her for a sum of gold and currency
for wedding costs and business investments (to make him a more profitable husband). She gave him
the gold and currency without demanding a formal contract of marriage; he then married another, and
refused to return the gold and currency. Plaintiff sought an order from the Chancellor to compel him to
do so. Here, an injunction was sought because there was no suitable common law form of relief.”( See
Baildon, Introduction to SELECT CASES iN CHANCERY A.D. 1364 TO 1471 xix (Selden Society Vol. 10))
CASE-LAW-2013
Kum R.Preksha Vs Prasad G.N, Writ petition no. 6523/2013(GM FC), Firstly, wife filed a MC 3749/12 for
restitution of conjugal rights and temporary injunction restrain her husband to marry anthor girl during
pendency of the suit. Lower court granted injunction. High Court set asides it.
TORTS- INJUNCTIONS
An injunction was sought against waste in Petetson v. Shelley, 73 where the plaintiff, who had a
reversionary interest in land, wanted to prevent the present tenant from committing waste of the
timber.( Choyce Cases 117, 21 Eng. Rep. 72 (Ch. 1577))
Contempt of court: 1576-1577
Injunctions could extend beyond the parties to include their attorneys and counsellors. The latter could
be enjoined from proceeding at law or enforcinga judgment, 95 and they could be held in contempt of
Chancery if they violated the injunction. (Allen v. Dingley, Choyce Cases 113, 21 Eng. Rep. 70 (Ch.
1576-1577))
Cardinal Wolsey was accused of certain improprieties by articles of impeachment that were drawn up
against him after he lost the royal favor
and was dismissed from office by Henry VIII:
No complaint was made against him of bribery or corruption, and the charges were only that he had
examined many matters in Chancery after judgment had been given at common law; – that he had
unduly granted injunctions; – that when his injunctions were disregarded by the Judges, he had sent for
those venerable magistrates and sharply reprimanded them for their obstinancy.
(E. COKE, INsTrruTEs 88-95 (1628 & photo reprint 1979), for a
list of all 44 articles of impeachment against Wolsey.)
It is thus known that Wolsey not only issued injunctions too freely, but was also high-handed in his
dealings with the judges. That there was friction between the courts of law and Chancery during his
Chancellorship is understandable. In 1616, the tension between common law and Chancery flared into
sharp and open conflict. In our country, the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides a large number of
remedial aspects of Law. This Act came in force in the replacement of earlier Act of 1877. Injunction is a
judicial process by which one who has invaded or is is threatening t invade the rights, legal or equitable,
of another, is ordered to refrain from doing, or to do a particular act or thing.
THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963- INJUNCTIONS:
Section. 38. Perpetual injunction when granted.-
1. Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter,
2. to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour of plaintiff, whether expressly or by
implication.
3. If such obligation arises from contract, follow the provisions contained in Chapter II.
4. (3) If defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’ s right to, or enjoyment of, property,
grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:-
1. where the defendant is trustee
2. if there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the
invasion;
3. if invasion – that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
4. to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
Section 41. Injunction when refused.- An injunction cannot be granted
Any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending (Exception:- to prevent a multiplicity of
proceedings)
1. from instituting or prosecuting civil or criminal
2. from applying to any legislative body;
3. to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced;
4. to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, when such act is not reasonably clear that it will be a
nuisance;
5. to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced;
6. when efficacious relief is available
7. to disentitle any person to the assistance of the court;
8. when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.
39. Mandatory injunctions.-
 To prevent the breach of an obligation,
 Necessity to compel the performance of certain acts
 The court is capable of enforcing,
 It is a discretionary relief.
40. Damages in lieu of, or in addition to, injunction.-
 The plaintiff may claim damages under section 38, or under section 39
 The plaintiff shall claim damages in his plaint: plaint can be amended at any stage of the suit.
 The dismissal of a suit is bar to claim damages.
SOME BASIC RULES OF INJUNCTIONS :
1) An injunction is an equitable remedy;
2) The party , who seeks equitable relief, must come with clean hands
3) A perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation in his
favour.
4) Injunction is an equitable remedy.(AIR 1966 Guj.189)
5) There must be breach of an obligation or infringement of a legal right. (1981 ALL.WC 68)
6) The possession must be lawful possession (AIR 1977 Orissa 152)
7) In the absence of irreparable loss, damages is the remedy. (AIR 1979 ALL 184)
8) Where there is an efficacious relief, no injunction should be granted. ( AIR 1980 P&H 351)
9) Juridical possession is also a valid ground to grant injunction. (AIR 1986 Kar 194)
10) Question of title may be incidentally gone into, while granting an injunction (AIR 1981 SC 1183)
11) Injunction cannot be granted in case of illegal agreement (ILR 1 Bom 550, Bhikaji vs Bapu Saju)
12) No injunction shall be granted in case of an agreement with minor. (See secs. 11 and 12 of Indian
Contract Act.)
13) Some time symbolic delivery is sufficient to sustain an action for injunction (AIR 1977 Orissa 152)
14) Injunction by a person in possession without title. (AIR 1986 Kar 224)
15) Injunction in case of co-owners (AIR 1969 Goa 90), and (AIR 1982 All 80)
16) Injunction and sec.53A of T.P.Act. (Different views) (see AIR 1976 AP 395)
17) Injunction in case of nuisance (AIR 1937 Madras 21, Syed Pitchai vs Devaji Rao)
18) Injunction in case of easementary right (AIR 1974 Orissa 89, Dhannala vs Chittar Singh)
19) Injunction against trustee (ILR 30 Mad, Krishna swamy vs Samram)
20) Injunction to prevent waste (1714) 2 Atk 182, Bigson vs Smith
21) Injunction against trade marks (AIR 1965 Madras 250 at 251, T.M.Abdul Rahim and co vs Ahmed
Basha)
22) No injunction in case of caste questions. (AIR 1932 Bom.122, Nagindas vs Somnath)
23) Injunction against Trade Unions (AIR 1963 Patna 170)
24) Injunction by insolvency court (AIR 1954 Mad 12)
25) Injunction against Government. (AIR 1969 Pat.72 Sabodh Gopal vs State of Bihar)
26) Injunction in case of Companies (AIR 1936 All 568, British India Corp. vs Robert Menzies)
27) Mandatory injunctions (AIR 1929 Lah. 73, Bhagawan Singh Vs Hari Singh)
28) Principles and conditions to grant mandatory injunction. (AIR 1929 Bom. 94, Ardeshir Jiwanji vs
Aimai Kuvarji)
29) To grant damages in injunction suits, (AIR 1954 Sau.139; 9th Report of Law Commission; AIR 1975
Mad 189)
30) To refuse injunction. (AIR 1931 Cal. 279); AIR 1949 All 301; AIR 1978 Mad. 374)
Also see IMPORTANT recent rulings:
1. When injunctions cannot be granted (2011) 6 SCC 617, AC Muthiah’s case
2. Counter claim iin injunction suit, 2011(9) sc 332. Held. After framing issues, cannot be allowed.
3.Injunctions – Joint family properties. AIR 1988 SC 576
4.It is well settled that the purchaser of a coparcener’s undivided interest in joint family property is not
entitled to possession what he has purchased. (1966 (1) SCR 628) It is observed in AIR 2008 SC 2489.
5.Part of joint family properties – agreement of sale – 5 judges bench – AIR 1953 SC 443.
6. Revenue record is document of title. AIR 2008 SC 901
7. Pendent lite transaction in injunction suit, (2009) 12 SC 2003
8. Continous possession – termination of agency – Injunction -2011 (4) SCALE 209
9. Scope of injunctions –Anathula Sudhakar vs P.Butchi Reddy, AIR 2008 SC 2003
Conclusion:
To sum up succinctly, injunction means ‘It is an ordr of Court by which an individual is required to
perform, or is restrained from performing, a particular act. It is judicial process. The courts exercise their
power to issue injunctions judiciously, and only when necessity exists. An injunction is generally issued
only in cases where irreparable injury to the rights of an individual would result otherwise. It should be
readily apparent to the court that some act has been performed, or is threatened, that will produce
irreparable injury to the party seeking the injunction. An injury is generally considered irreparable when
it cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages. The pecuniary damage that would be
incurred from the threatened action need not be great, however. If a loss can be calculated in terms of
money, there is no irreparable injury. The consequent refusal by a court to grant an injunction is,
therefore, proper. 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. Whether or not an injunction will be granted varies with the facts of each case.