The scope of jurisdiction available to this Court at this stage is well known. The temporary injunction is a discretionary relief granted to preserve the subject matter till end of civil suit & to satisfy the decree therein. Prima facie case, balance of convenience & possibility of the irreparable loss are the tests applied by trial court & this Court can interfere only if there is any perversity or jurisdictional error. If the trial court has after proper appreciation of records and contentions reached a plausible finding, this Court can not overrule it merely because some other view is also possible. In the case of Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd., MANU/SC/0595/1990 : 1990 (Supp) SCC 727, the Hon. Apex Court has considered the question of grant of interlocutory injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure in a case under Section 29(2) of the Act and Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and held as follows :-
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 bee 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.
The interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the rights of parties which may appear of a prima facie case. The Court also, in restraining a defendant from exercising what he considers his legal right but what the plaintiff would like to be prevented, puts into the scales, as a relevant consideration whether the defendant has yet to commence his enterprise or whether he has already been doing so in which latter case considerations somewhat different from those that apply to a case where the defendant is yet to commence his enterprise, are attracted. xxx xxx xxx xxx The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. {Para 8}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Appeal From Order No. 838 of 2011
Decided On: 05.11.2012
Mangalam Group Vs. Nandkumar Bhalchandra Bhondve
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.
Citation: 2013(1) ABR 331,MANU/MH/1819/2012
Print Page
