1. Introduction
An injunction is a judicial order that prohibits a person from commencing or continuing an action that threatens or infringes on the legal rights of another, or forcing a person to perform a certain conduct, such as making compensation to an injured party. Our country’s injunction legislation is based on Equity Jurisprudence, which was inherited from England, which took it from Roman Law. According to our legal system, if there is a right there must be a remedy.
The fundamental goal of interim relief is to keep property in dispute safe until the lawful rights and competing arguments of the parties are resolved. Interim remedy can be granted or denied by the court in the exercise of good judicial judgement. The purpose of granting a temporary injunction is to maintain the status quo at the moment the proceedings are commenced and to prohibit any modifications until the litigation is finally decided. It is sort of a protective remedy provided in a party’s favor in order to avert future harm.
Page Contents
2. Types of Injunctions
Temporary and perpetual injunctions are the most common types of injunctions. A person who is given a permanent injunction is permanently barred from performing the act that is the subject of the complaint. Only a final decision issued at the hearing and based on the merits of the case can give a perpetual injunction. A temporary or interim injunction, on the other hand, can be obtained on an interlocutory application at any stage of a lawsuit. The injunction is described as temporary since it is in effect until the case is resolved or until the Court issues another ruling.
3. Injunctions under the Indian Civil Procedural Code, 1908
Sections 94 and 95 of the CPC stipulate those rules to be created under which a court might direct injunctive reliefs in a specific instance, and that rules be prescribed under Order 39. Injunctions, ex parte ad interim and permanent, are dealt with in Order 39 (1) and (2), whilst interim measures, which may or may not be interim injunctions, are dealt with in Order 38 and especially Rule 5 where we ask someone to give security.
Order 38 Rule 5
Interim measures are provided under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC, which requires a person requesting such relief to establish a higher standard than a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and urgent prospect of irreversible harm or injury (three Parameters). As a result, if the relief requested under Order 38 Rule 5 is not granted, the decree or the entire court process would be rendered null and void. The court orders the opposing party to maintain specific assets or provide security in place of them in certain situations (which are extremely rare). This is to guarantee that a decree is properly monetized and does not stay a paper decree once it is passed. This can occur if the party against whom the injunction was issued has alienated his or her property. The courts must also guarantee that such a remedy does not result in the creation of an unsecured debt.
Order 39 (1) and (2)
Ex parte interim remedy is the focus of Order 39(1) and (2). Ex parte ad interim remedy is when a temporary injunction is required so that the opposing party is not alerted. Certain criteria have been established over time as a result of numerous court dictums.
In Morgan Stanley v. Kartick Das[1], the Supreme Court held that, in most cases, a court should not provide ex parte ad interim relief behind the party’s back. Allow the opposing party to be alerted if an interim injunction is to be issued. Only in extreme instances, where the failure to award injunctions would result in grave injustice and irreversible injury, should such action be taken.
Proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 expresses unequivocally that in such situations, the reasons must be noted. Apart from the three pillars that serve as the foundation for injunctions, they must consider the plaintiff’s conduct, such as whether the plaintiff approached the court within a reasonable time or if the plaintiff was lazing around his right and only went to court when the threat was at his door, the plaintiff’s prima facie averments, and whether the same are supported by documents on record. All of these reasons, taken together, will persuade a judge to grant or deny such relief.
After receiving ex parte relief, a party must promptly notify the opposing party that an ex parte injunction has been issued against that party, and the party requesting relief must also provide a copy of the plaint and other papers on record. A party must also file a compliance report using an affidavit, which must be done under oath. It’s also worth noting that failing to meet the aforementioned requirements might have significant implications.
4. Temporary Injunction
A temporary injunction is a temporary relief that is used to keep the status quo. Its goal is to keep the plaintiff’s rights from being dissolved. The main point for using a temporary injunction is because you need relief right away. Sections 94(c) and (e) of the CPC provide that the Court may give a temporary injunction or make any other interlocutory order that seems to the Court to be reasonable and convenient in order to avoid the objectives of justice from being defeated. Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code also states that if a temporary injunction is granted and the Court determines that there were insufficient grounds, or if the plaintiff’s suit fails and the Court determines that there was no reasonable or probable ground for instituting the suit, the Court may award reasonable compensation on the defendant’s application, up to the extent of the Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction.
In the case Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola[2], the Supreme Court established the following guidelines to be followed while granting temporary injunction:
- The plaintiff for interim injunctive relief must demonstrate a prima facie case in his favour. The Court will not analyse the merits of the matter for this reason, but rather the essential facts on which it is shown that the applicant has a prima facie cause to contest. Following that, the petitioner must demonstrate that the allegations/averments mentioned in the application for the interim injunction are credible.
- The court will also look at the applicant’s actions, which should be looked into even before filing an application to set aside an order under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC.
- The court must consider the balance of convenience, i.e. the comparative loss caused to the applicant and respondent if the order is not granted.
- The court will first consider the magnitude of the applicant’s damage if the order is not granted, as well as whether it is reparable by monetary compensation, i.e. payment of costs. The court will then consider the respondent’s loss if the order is granted, and it must determine which loss is greater and irreparable. The party that would incur the most loss is considered to have a balance of convenience in his favour, and the court will either pass or refuse to issue the order. If required, the court may further require the party to post compensation security or make an assurance to pay the compensation.
- Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if his interim injunction request is denied.
Furthermore, the court has the authority to issue a temporary injunction at its discretion. This discretion, on the other hand, should be applied with caution, prudence, and adherence to solid legal principles. Injunctions should not be given carelessly since they have a negative impact on the opposite party. An injunction is an equitable remedy, and the court has the right to impose whatever terms and limits it deems appropriate. Such limits, however, must be fair so that they do not make it impossible for the party to comply with them, depriving him of the relief to which he would otherwise be entitled.
Moreover, it has been held in the case Wander v. Antox India[3] that “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”.
5. Perpetual Injunction
Perpetual or mandatory injunctions are not covered under CPC but rather in Specific Relief Act, 1860. When a judge issues a decree permanently restraining someone, a perpetual injunction is sought. Injunctions like this are more common nowadays in IPR cases involving trademark or copyright infringers or patent disputes. The three criteria’ norms remain the same. There are several instances when a prima facie case is sufficient to issue an injunction, and there is no need to prove that irreversible harm would result. However, those are situations in which a person asks the court to have a negative covenant enforced. A pre-emptive right is sometimes referred to as a negative covenant, and it is usually vested in the contract conditions.
6. Conclusion
Injunctive relief must be given only when it is absolutely required. It may be allowed in cases where it may aid in the maintenance of peace and public order. When there is a risk of a disturbance of public order or peace, the Court should proceed with care. An injunction is a remedy against an individual that should only be given for acts committed by the person against whom it is sought to be enforced. It has traditionally been used when a harm cannot be adequately rectified by a monetary reward, as with other equitable remedies. Injunctions are used to restore someone’s rights after they have been violated. Courts do, however, consider the interests of non-parties when considering whether or not to grant an injunction (that is, the public interest). Courts pay great attention to considerations of justice and good faith when considering whether or not to issue an injunction and what its scope should be.
[1] 1994 SCC (4) 225, JT 1994 (3) 654.
[2] 1995 AIR 2372, 1995 SCC (5) 545.
[3] 1990 (2) ARBLR 399 SC, 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727.
Author Bio
