Interim injunction

Applicant /defendant was aggrieved of grant of interim injunction by Trial Court in favour of respondent / plaintiff, which was assailed before High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction

Validity

Order in question basically stated that as the Survey Superintendent contradicted himself and admitted that there might exist an overlap of location of properties in question, prima facie case for injunctive relief was made out

Such order could not be considered as special circumstances where Trial Court had either assumed a jurisdiction not vested init or had failed to exercise or declined to assume a jurisdiction vested in it by law or had taken a procedural step or had omitted to take a procedural step which was contrary to a mandatory provision of law or had taken procedural step pursuant to law which was directory in nature and applicant / defendant was prejudiced

High Court declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction as the application was not maintainable for there existed no special circumstances

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Trial Court declined to issue interim injunction in favour of respondents / plaintiffs but Lower Appellate Court passed interim injunction against petitioner / defendant

Validity

Interlocutory order of injunction under O.XXXIX, R.1 & 2, C.P.C. can be passed by Court only if plaintiff proves that he / she has prima facie case, who is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is refused and balance of convenience is also in his / her favour

In establishing prima facie case, plaintiff needs not establish his title

It would be sufficient for plaintiff to show that he has a fair question to raise as to existence of his rights and that till such question is ripe for trial, a case is made out for preservation of property in status quo

'Irreparable injury' means such injury which cannot be adequately remedied by damages

Remedy by damages would be inadequate if compensation ultimately payable to plaintiff in case of success in suit would not place him in a position in which he was before injunction was refused

'Balance of convenience' means comparative mischief or inconvenience to parties

Inconvenience to plaintiff, if temporary injunction is refused, would be balanced and compared with that to the defendant if it is granted

If scale of inconvenience leans to the side of plaintiff, then interlocutory injunction should be granted

Respondents / plaintiffs failed to fulfill all such conditions, and did not have good prima facie case in their favour

Irreparable loss in favour of respondents / plaintiffs was not developed nor balance of convenience laid in their favour

High Court set aside the order passed by Lower Appellate Court in favour of respondents / plaintiffs and restored that of the Trial Court

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Trade mark in question was owned by partnership concern and prior or bona fide usage of the trade mark by respondent/plaintiff was denied by appellant/defendant in written statement

Intellectual Property Tribunal restrained appellant / defendant from using trade mark in question

Validity

Interim injunction, by its nature, is a preventive relief preserving status quo of subject matter till final conclusion of the suit

After ascertaining prima facie case, by assessing relevant documents if available, Courts must see existence of remaining two factors of balance of convenience and irreparable loss or injury

Preventive relief, in such circumstances and in the cases of unregistered marks, should not be granted as a matter of course and it is suitable when existence of right by prior use or its creation as well as its infringement are demonstrated with some clarity

High Court set aside order passed by the Tribunal as three ingredients required for grant of interim injunction were not co-existing

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Court at such stage is to make a tentative assessment of the case for enabling itself to see whether three requisites are met or not

Relief of injunction is known to be discretionary and it is to be granted following sound legal principles and ex-debito justiae

Term "prima facie case" is not specifically defined in Civil Procedure Code, 1908, but the consensus is that in order to satisfy about existence of a prima facie case, pleadings must contain facts constituting existence of right of plaintiff and its infringement at the hands of opposite party

Balance of convenience is that if an injunction is not granted and suit is ultimately decided in favour of plaintiff, the inconvenience caused to plaintiff would be greater than that would be caused to defendant, if the injunction is granted

It is for the plaintiff to show that inconvenience caused to plaintiff would be greater than that which may be caused to defendant

Irreparable loss is held to mean to be the loss, which is incapable of being calculated on the yardstick of money.

For grant of an interim injunction the party approaching the Court must show prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

Party to the suit has to establish a "prima facie" case, "balance of convenience" and "irreparable loss" for temporary injunction

Three ingredients must co-exist in favour of a party.

Plaintiffs had not sought any relief which deprived the defendant from the property, they had only prayed for maintenance of status quo in respect of the suit properties till disposal of the suit

Object of granting interim injunction was to ensure that the suit property would not be alienated in case of decree being passed in favour of the plaintiff and execution thereof did not become difficult

Principle of lis pendens was no ground to refuse the temporary injunction

Revision petition was accepted and the defendant was directed not to create third party interest in the suit properties till disposal of the main suit.

Petitioners/plaintiffs claimed to be tenants in shops in question and claimed that respondents/defendants had no right to dispossess them

Both the Courts below concurrently declined to grant interim injunction against respondents/defendants

Validity

For grant of temporary injunction, it was sine qua non for petitioners/plaintiffs to have on record a prima facie case regarding balance of convenience and irreparable loss with co-existence such ingredients in their favour

Mala fide attributed to respondents / defendants required evidence

Case standing in need of evidence required to be established was not a "prima facie case" for the purpose of grant of temporary injunction

Petitioners/plaintiffs were in possession of disputed property for more than three decades, which signified dilapidated condition of building and the same further led to conclusion that balance of convenience and irreparable loss was tilting in favour of respondents/defendants

Concurrent findings of Courts below could only be set aside if the same were result of misreading, non-reading of evidence or any irregularity or patent illegality committed by Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, possession and cancellation of documents along with application under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C.

Respondents/defendants filed contesting written statement as well as reply of application

Trial Court accepted the prayer of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of restraining respondents/ defendants from alienating the suit property any further

Respondents/ defendants filed an appeal which was allowed by Appellate Court and dismissed the application

Validity

Petitioners/ plaintiffs could not make out a prima facie good arguable case in their favour, as such , balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss also did not tilt in their favour

Necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C. were existence of prima facie arguable case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss or injury

Civil revision was dismissed.

All and any correspondence with respect to development of societies to and from regulatory authorities and administrative departments of government took place between deceased predecessor-in-interest of respondents / plaintiffs

In all such correspondence, it was deceased predecessor-in-interest of respondents / plaintiffs who was mentioned and acknowledged as a Developer

Names of petitioners / defendants were not mentioned anywhere in such correspondence

All amounts deposited by way of dues were deposited by deceased predecessor-in-interest of the respondents / plaintiffs and not petitioners / defendants

All three alive witnesses supported oral agreement to sell and respondents / plaintiffs had a prima facie case

Petitioners / defendants had already resorted to selling plots on their own, balance of inconvenience also tilted in favour of respondents / plaintiffs

High Court modified the order passed by Lower Appellate Court and allowed sale in respect of 50% plots on commercial side and 50% plots on residential side to petitioners / defendants

Such sale was subject to confirmation by Trial Court during pendency of the suit

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Held, there was no entitlement to government accommodation save in accordance with allotment policy of the concerned government

No provision existed in the Policy Governing Allotment of Residential Government Accommodation, allowing retention of government accommodation till decision of any service appeal against compulsory retirement

Discretionary relief under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, could be provided only when party was able to establish its entitlement to any legal character/right in property

Injunctive order was passed by Appellate Court mechanically without considering essential ingredients governing the grant of injunction in civil cases

Injunctive order was obtained while concealing facts relating to filing/pendency of first appeal which was withdrawn by respondent immediately after grant of interim injunction in his second appeal

Inequitable conduct of respondent disentitled himself for the grant of equitable relief

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Consequence of holding that in case of a party seeking compensation or damages as an alternative remedy, it cannot be granted interim injunction (in relation to contracts involving movable property at least) would be to produce multiplicity of proceedings at the best, or worse, frustrate the ability of claimant to seek specific enforcement after trial

If party makes out a prima facie case but is denied interim relief on the basis of it seeking alternative relief of compensation or damages, the lis would not remain preserved and it might become impossible to specifically enforce the contract in question at the time of judgment

In the event that suit property changes hands, refusal to grant injunction and preserve status of lis would result in multiplicity of proceedings

Such interpretation of S.56(i) of Specific Relief Act, 1877, would force parties not to claim compensation or damages in alternative to avoid any mischief caused due to existence of S.56 (i) of Specific Relief Act, 1877, and bring a suit for damages subsequently if Court finds that specific performance cannot be granted

As such it can attract bar in O.II, R.2, C.P.C.

In a case of breach of contract, a party can have the right to enforce its performance while also seeking damages for breach of obligations by counter-party that has already taken place

Logical for a party to claim damages as an alternative in case specific performance cannot be ordered in circumstances of the case due to impossibility or any other factor

Action of claimant in seeking an alternate remedy from Court in terms of compensation does not mean that such compensation may make the claimant whole, affect restitution and amount to ascertainment of actual damages caused due to non-performance of contract for purpose of S.12(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1877.

Prima facie arguable case in favour of the plaintiff, irreparable loss and balance of convenience must be in favour of the plaintiff, which are required to be established for grant of interim injunction and if one of the said ingredients is missing, relief cannot be granted to the party seeking interim injunction.

Appellant was deprived of marketing its products, which was duly registered; without there being any justification in that behalf

Mandatory injunction could not be granted without hearing of other side because it operated against certain legal rights or obligations

Departure could only be made if such right was being used to delay/ frustrate the proceedings or exceptional circumstances so justified which must include irreparable loss

Impugned order was unjustified and void ab initio, as such the same was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to decide the application for injunction afresh.

Respondent-plaintiff filed suit for declaration, injunction and recovery of damages for illegal use of its trade mark "Samsonite"

Single Judge of High Court permitted appellant-defendant to sell goods of respondent-plaintiff as the same were not counterfeit products

Only proposition on the basis of which injunctive order was passed was that appellant-defendant could take benefit from display of respondent-plaintiff's trade mark as "signage"

In an attempt to demonstrate that appellant-defendant was using such signboard, respondent-plaintiff produced various photographs through statement showing that some of the shops of appellant-defendant displayed signboard of "Samsonite" to mislead customers and branding themselves to be an authorized distributor and reseller of the goods

Effect

Substance was to be evaluated for a party presenting prima facie case and balance of inconvenience

Once such discretion was exercised by Trial Court/Single Judge of High Court, which in substance could be ascertained while going through entire order, then discretion exercised by Trial Court/Single Judge of High Court was not to be normally interfered

Appellate Court normally avoid interfering in orders of interlocutory nature involving exercise of discretion, as appellate Court cannot substitute its own discretion unless when the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or where Court ignored certain principles regulating grant or refusal of injunction

Division Bench of High Court declined to reassess material to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by Trial Court/Single Judge of High Court on consideration that another view was possible

If discretion was exercised by Trial Court/Single Judge of High Court reasonably in a judicial manner, same should not be interfered in exercise of appellate jurisdiction

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

On the strength of credentials and being number one in the list of candidates, short listed for appointment of Vice Chancellor, appellant filed a suit as she viewed discrimination at the hands of the authority

Injunctive order was passed directing the Authority not to make final list in respect of the selected candidates

While the injunctive order was operating, a Vice Chancellor was appointed

Appellant being aggrieved of the notification yet again filed an application for seeking appropriate injunctive orders

Single Judge of High Court apart from issuing notices observed that suspension of notification would not be proper as it would adversely affect the functioning of the University and that the interim orders passed earlier were to continue till the next date of hearing

Validity

Once an earlier injunctive order was passed, a follow up order to carry the real object of the earlier order should have been passed

Single Judge of High Court was empowered to revisit and decide the applications finally but not in a cursory manner and that too after passing adverse remarks

Single Judge of High Court could have conveniently avoided the observation as only notices were ordered

Selection of observation by the Single Judge of High Court had perhaps overlapped and overshadowed the earlier order and the mandate without the applications being actually heard and decided

Impugned order was set aside to the extent of observations, in circumstances

Appeal was allowed.

Interim injunction could not be granted to interfere with the Bank's obligation to make payment to a beneficiary who made a demand for the encashment of an irrevocable and unconditional Bank guarantee.

Where evidence is required to prove a claim, such case cannot be presumed to be a prima facie case.

Where evidence is required to be recorded to substantiate the claim, prima facie case cannot be presumed.

Three basic ingredients required for grant of interim injunction were prima facie arguable case; irreparable loss and balance of convenience

Even if one of the said ingredients was missing, relief could not be granted to party seeking interim injunction.

No injunction can be issued unless all ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to the aggrieved party co-exist.

Court could not give any conclusive finding as plaintiff was not able to point out exact location of his land on basis of his ownership documents annexed with plaint

Land of plaintiffs fell far away from position, i.e., position claimed by plaintiffs as all along land was pointed out by plaintiffs to court officials

At injunctive stage plaintiff was duty bound to make out his prima facie on basis of his documents

Inspection was carried out along with concerned officials and none had supported case of plaintiffs

High Court declined to restore possession

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Plea raised by defendant was that loss caused to plaintiff could be remedied in terms of money therefore, interim injunction could not have been granted

Validity

If loss of plaintiff was measurable in terms of money, injunction could not be granted

Mandate of S.56(i) of Specific Relief Act, 1877 was that no injunction should be granted when equally efficacious relief could be obtained by any other usual mode of proceedings

Since plaintiffs had sought recovery of a quantified amount in their suit against defendant and since loss caused to plaintiffs by breach of oral agreement could be measured in terms of money, question of any irreparable loss to plaintiffs did not arise

Existence of all three ingredients, i.e., irreparable loss; balance of convenience and strong prima facie arguable case were necessary, for a court to grant interim injunction

High Court set aside orders passed by Trial court as essential element of irreparable loss to plaintiffs was lacking

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner alleged that the respondents by demolishing the steel gate installed by petitioner violated the order of court whereby petitioner was allowed to complete the construction of boundary wall on the disputed land

Validity

Court had not specifically restrained the respondents from interfering in the suit land

Contempt petition was dismissed.

Person who disobeys the injunction can be proceeded against for contempt of court and action can also be taken against him under O. XXXIX, R. 2(3), C.P.C.

Injunction becomes operative the moment it is served upon respondent and he is made aware of the order.

Petitioner, in order to obtain an interim injunction, is required to demonstrate that a good prima facie case is made out in his favour; that the balance of convenience is in his favour and that he would suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted

Injunction could not be granted unless all the said three conditions for grant of injunction co-exist.

Temporary injunction ceased to have effect upon expiration of the period of one year as envisaged by O.XXXIX, R. 2-B, C.P.C.

In the present case, a period of more than one year had lapsed between the passing of the temporary injunction, in favour of plaintiffs by the Trial Court and the passing of the impugned decision by the appellate Court, whereby the temporary injunction was confirmed

As such, at the time of the decision by the appellate Court there was no temporary injunction in the field in favour of the plaintiffs

Nothing was available on the record to show that the defendants had moved application in terms of R.2-B of O.XXXIX, C.P.C. for extension of the order of temporary injunction granted in their favour nor for that matter the order was extended nor was there any report to that effect before the High Court

Similarly there was nothing on the record to show that the said order was suspended by the appellate Court in the plaintiffs' appeal since by operation of law there was no temporary injunction in the field

Plaintiffs' appeal before the appellate Court in fact had become infructuous

Revision petition was dismissed being incompetent with the observation that defendants, if advised, may move an application under the provisions of R.2-B of O.XXXIX, C.P.C. before the trial Court for extension and/or re-issuance of a temporary injunction in their favour.

Plaintiff, a non-profit Association registered under Companies Ordinance, 1984 assailed election results of the Association and sought recounting of votes

Validity

Defendants neither raised any allegation of rigging, fraudulent means or corrupt practices nor any allegation against election commission for any rigging or unfair means

Mere allegation of manipulation in final results without any evidence could not be accepted

On the basis of unreliable oral evidence which was unsubstantiated by any credible independent evidence and in absence of cogent evidence it would be unjust and unfair to unseat a returned candidate and disenfranchise all Association members

High Court directed the authorities to recount all votes under the supervision of official of the High Court , so as to meet ends of justice, fair play and to satisfy conscience, misgivings and reservations of defendants

High Court declined to form interim set up and then hold fresh elections for which concerned authority was engaged in communication and also conveyed his wishes to plaintiff Association in a slipshod manner without holding any inquiry to election process

Application was allowed accordingly.

When there is some dispute with regard to title, ownership and possession of some immovable property most appropriate relief which can be granted on an interlocutory application is to direct parties to maintain status quo and not to create any third party interest in respect of disputed property.

Plea raised by plaintiff was that once all relevant facts were brought to the notice of the Single Judge of the High Court along with relevant documents, he could not have restrained from raising any construction upon plot in question on the basis of illegal documents

Validity

Mere fact that a prima facie case was established would not entitle plaintiff to an injunction unless other two factors i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable damage or injury were fulfilled

Single Judge of High Court while passing order in question had taken complete stock of relevant facts and also made tentative assessment of material and documents produced by parties in support of their respective claim of entitlement and possession over subject land

Three factors i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury were required to be considered for grant of injunction and the same had been duly taken cognizance by the Single Judge of High Court

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by the Single Judge as the same did not suffer from any error or illegality

High Court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

No temporary injunction in absence of any prayer for perpetual injunction can be granted.

Phrase 'Prima facie case' in its plain language signifies a triable case where some substantial question is to be investigated or some serious questions are to be tried

Phrase 'Prima facie case' needs not to be confused with 'Prima facie title'

Before granting injunction Court is bound to consider probability of plaintiff succeeding in suit

All presumptions and ambiguities are taken against party seeking to obtain temporary injunction

Balance of convenience and inconvenience being in favour of defendant i.e. greater damage would arise to defendant by granting injunction in event of its turning out afterwards to be wrongly provided than to plaintiff from withholding it, in event of legal right proving to be in his favour, injunction may not be granted

Party which seeks aid of Court by way of injunction must as a rule, satisfy Court that interference is necessary to protect from species of injury which Court calls `irreparable' before legal right can be established on trial

In technical sense with question of granting or withholding preventive equitable aid, an injury is said to be irreparable either because no legal remedy furnishes full compensation or adequate redress or owing to inherent ineffectiveness of such legal remedy.

Plaintiff was running a petrol/CNG station and authorities were taking over the possession of plot of the station but Single Judge of High Court declined to grant interim injunction

Validity

Plaintiff had investment and ongoing business in the form of functioning petrol station/CNG station

Balance of convenience was in favour of preserving such state of affairs and the same lay with the plaintiff

Authorities/(Cantonment Board) confirmed that its intention was to continue utilization of subject premises for the same purpose

Principal concern was confined to that of realizing fresh terms by auction

In the event of divestiture of plaintiff from subject premises, investment already made would potentially be laid waste

Plaintiff had at least an arguable case that it was inferable if not implicit from the letter of assurance that lease be renewed for a further ten years' period in as much as such renewal would not be unreasonably withheld in the event of continued utilization of subject premises for the same purpose

Order passed by Single Judge of High Court declining interim injuction suffered from material infirmities and was set aside

Division Bench of High Court restrained authorities from disturbing possession of plaintiff over suit property and directed that operation of petrol/CNG station in question could be carried on by plaintiff unabated until disposal of underlying suit

Interim injunction was granted in circumstances.

Balance of convenience meant inconvenience faced by the party in case of refusal of interim injunction.

Irreparable loss meant the loss accrued to the party.

Plaintiff assailed demand of tax raised by Revenue authorities for use of poles, masts and towers claiming such services to be "telecommunication services," as defined under S. 2(97) of Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011

Validity

Pole, tower or mast that was being used commonly was being 'shared' between plaintiff and (relevant) defendant

Pole, tower and mast could be regarded as having certain 'capacity' even in plaintiff's own case, since it had a physical dimension and there was only so much equipment (booster, transmitter, antenna etc.) that could be fixed on to or hung from it especially when height requirements were also taken into account

Such capacity was not within the meaning of definition and third element in the definition made it clear

Capacity was in relation, or with reference to transmission, emission or reception of signals

License had granted the service provider, the right to use such capacity and if such capacity was shared with another then a 'telecommunication service' was provided within the meaning of S.2(97) of Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011

Plaintiff made out a prima facie case as proposed levy fell outside the scope of 'telecommunication service' and other ingredients for interim relief also lay in favour of plaintiff

Business of plaintiff would be adversely affected, if it was unable to have access to various towers, poles etc. as per its arrangements with private defendants (companies) and such access might become practically unavailable if the tax was levied and plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury

Balance of convenience also lay in favour of plaintiff, therefore, case for interim relief was made out

High Court suspended notice issued by revenue authorities and restrained them from charging, claiming or collecting any tax under Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011, in respect of any matter that would come within the scope of sharing passive infrastructure

Application was allowed accordingly.

Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate risk of injustice to plaintiff during period before uncertainty can be resolved

While granting injunction court has to consider whether prima facie case is made out with two important factors that is elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury

In order to make out a prima facie case, plaintiff need not establish his title; it is enough if he can show that he has fair question to raise as to existence of right which he alleged and can satisfy court that property in dispute should be preserved in its present actual condition until such question is disposed of

Plaintiff should establish that balance of convenience in event of withholding relief of temporary injunction in all event exceeds that of defendant in case he is restrained

Plaintiff must show a clear necessity for affording protection to his alleged right which can otherwise be seriously injured or impaired

Where legal injury caused to plaintiff is far greater than those that may be caused to defendant, grant of temporary injunction is proper

Term "irreparable injury" meant an injury which is substantial and cannot be adequately remedied for by damages.

Plaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit land and sought restraining of defendants from raising construction on suit land

Validity

While seeking favourable injunctive relief applicant was to prove prima facie existence of right claimed in suit and also its infringement

Mere fact that prima facie case was established, could not entitle the applicant to an injunction unless other two factors i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable damage or injury, were fulfilled

Court was required to balance inconvenience and to see as to whether applicant would suffer more inconvenience by withholding of injunction than that which respondent would suffer by granting of injunction

Court was further required to weigh mischief of either party in case of grant or refusal of injunction

Normally balance was to lie in favour of continuation of a state of things, such as to protect possession of a party or to allow continuance of contract

While granting injunction or otherwise it had to be ensured that grant of injunction to one party might not cause irreparable damage or injury to other party whose loss could not be compensated in terms of money

Conclusion drawn by Single Judge of High Court did not suffer from any error or illegality and did not require any interference by Division Bench of High Court

Intra-Court Appeal was dismissed.

First and prime condition of relief of interim injunction is 'prima facie case' which in its wider sense touches maintainability of suit

Term 'prima facie' is not complete unless the case does not appear to be entitled for a decree from its totality.

No stay order can be granted, which interferes in performance of public duty, merely for the reason that as a result of act, an individual would suffer monetary loss which can be measured and compensated in terms of money.

For .issuance or refusal of interim injunction, the court had to see that a good prima facie arguable case, was made out in favour of the plaintiff; if the party succeeded in establishing a good prima facie arguable case, then other 'two ingredients, irreparable loss and balance of convenience, had to be looked into

Question of balance of convenience, was to be weighed keeping in view the circumstances that, if ultimately the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed, which party would suffer more inconvenience, if the interim relief was not granted.

Petitioner assailed acquisition of land in question and sought interim injunction on the ground that it was a Waqf land and the same could not be acquired compulsorily and in the alternative, high compensation was claimed by him

Validity

Petitioner was taking an alternate position in the matter of compulsory acquisition of disputed land

Whilst opposing acquisition, petitioner was claiming compensation at a rate which was about eight times the settled rate of compensation that was being awarded for similar land

Ambivalence of petitioners in the matter indicated that there was a point of time / compensation when petitioner was willing to trade his plea of Waqf as a ploy and a bargaining point, and the same had undermined credibility of plea taken by petitioner

Petitioner's land contained marble factory and was not a religious site

Only the income of marble factory stood dedicated to a religious purpose

No injury or violence would be committed to Waqf if marble factory was relocated or another income generating asset was built from compensation for compulsory acquisition of petitioner's land

Such measures were equally consistent with Waqf deed and provisions of Sharia permitted alienation of land dedicated to Waqf and re-application of proceeds of its sale for charitable purpose specified for the Waqf

High Court directed the authorities to relocate petitioner's marble factory in accordance with law or otherwise he would be fairly compensated for land, buildings and machinery constituting acquired assets of petitioner in accordance with law

High Court vacated interim injunction already issued in favour of petitioner

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff claimed to be the bona fide purchaser of an exempted plot for valuable consideration but Development Authority wanted to cancel the same

Trial Court issued interim injunction for maintaining status quo but Lower Appellate Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court

Validity

Plaintiff was claiming himself to be the bona fide purchaser for value and he had to prove his case before civil court

Trial Court had rightly held that issuance of status' quo would be in the interest of both the parties but Lower Appellate Court had ignored pleadings of parties and as such order setting aside the interim injunction was erroneous

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Plaintiff claimed that trade mark in question was registered in his name and use of the same by defendant was an act of infringement

Interim injunction was granted by Trial Court in favour of plaintiff

Plea raised by defendant was that no trade mark was registered in favour of plaintiff

Validity

In absence of Certificate of Registration of Trade Mark, no right accrued in favour of plaintiff, infringement of which could be claimed

No prima facie case existed in favour of plaintiff and balance of inconvenience was also not in his favour

In absence of other two ingredients, suffering of irreparable loss was out of question

Trial Court did not properly appreciate the facts thus arrived to the conclusion which was not in accordance with law and facts, therefore, the same was not sustainable

High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, set aside the order passed by Trial Court and application of interim injunction filed by plaintiff was dismissed

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Trial Court may grant interim injunction under O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C. as it thinks fit, which may include imposing of any condition keeping in view the criteria of presence of prima facie arguable case; factor of irreparable loss; and balance of inconvenience.

Plaintiff who asks for injunction, must be able to satisfy the Court that his own acts and deeds in the matter have been fair, honest and free from any taint or illegality

If any dealing with person against whom he seeks relief he has acted in unfair or un-equitable manner

While granting injunction, Court has to consider principle of prima facie existence of right in plaintiff and its infringement by defendants or existence of prima facie case in favour of plaintiff, irreparable loss, damages or injuries which may occur to plaintiff if injunction is not granted and inconvenience which plaintiff may undergo from withholding injunction would be comparatively greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it and balance of inconvenience should be in favour of plaintiff

All three essential ingredients- must be fulfilled

Anyone of such ingredients would not warrant grant of injunction.

On one hand, the plaintiff was asserting its right of specific performance and showing disinterested in bank guarantee amount or damages but on the other hand got encashed bank guarantee on the ground that it was being expired

If plaintiff was keen in specific performance, then it should not have encashed the guarantee, no matter it was being expired

Encashment of bank guarantee after obtaining interim order of High Court showed lack of prima facie case in favour of plaintiff and the same amounted to surrender/relinquish the right to maintain injunction till final adjudication of the case

Plaintiff failed to make out any prima facie case, balance of convenience also did not lie in its favour and there was no question of any irreparable loss when not only the bank guarantee had been encashed due to non-performance of the agreement but plaintiff had also claimed huge amount of damages/compensation, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

In order to be entitled for interim relief, the claimant must establish all three ingredients for the grant of interim relief in his favour.

Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of disputed property on the ground that he had paid earnest money in the sum of Rs.15,25,000 and an additional amount of Rs.2.4 million subsequently, for purchase of disputed property

Defendant contested suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to pay the balance amount despite having received legal notice and that the time was the essence of the agreement

Trial Court granted an interim injunction to the plaintiff

Validity

Agreement to sell was admitted by both parties and receipt of an earnest money was also not denied by the defendant

Whether or not time was the essence of the agreement required deeper probe which could only be undertaken after recording of evidence

Prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff had been made out

In case the defendant was not restrained from alienating the suit property during pendency of the suit the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and possibility of multiplicity of proceedings could not be ruled out

High Court dismissed first appeal in limine with clarification that the observations made in the order by High Court were only of a tentative nature and should not affect the merits of the case.

Defendant sought stay of proceedings on the ground that dispute between the parties was subject-matter of arbitration before sole arbitrator

Validity

Issue of gift and ostensible ownership was pending adjudication before Arbitrator, therefore, unless the issue was decided in favour of plaintiffs, no further steps could be taken in the suit

Chance of plaintiff's success was dependent upon findings of gift in their favour, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim the rent before award

In order to avoid any miscarriage of justice and to secure rights and interest of plaintiffs, if any sustained or declared in the award of arbitrator, it would be appropriate for High Court to exercise powers under S. 41 of Arbitration Act, 1940, which had provided ample jurisdiction to grant interim injunction or appointment of receiver

High Court directed the defendant to submit with the court monthly accounts of rent of shops

Factum of ownership of plaintiffs was under dispute, therefore, High Court declined to give any direction to tenants for payment of rent to plaintiffs

Any such order would amount to negate the very purpose of arbitration and tantamount to circumvent the arbitration proceedings

High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under s.34 of Arbitration Act, 1940, stayed the proceedings of the suit pending before it

Application was allowed in circumstances.