Whether court should grant Injunction when damages can be assessed?

A bare perusal of the reply to the notice dated 6th August, 1993 will show (this has already been quoted), the plaintiff assessed the damage if the agreement is terminated, as the plaintiff themselves assessed the damages as will be evident from the paragraph quoted above, the question of granting injunction does not arise, because the law is settled that if the damage can be assessed, in term of money which or it can be compensated the question of granting injunction does not arise. In that view of the matter also, the injunction ought not to have been granted. Further, the suit itself was for permanent injunction and in such suit temporary injunction must be granted in a cautious manner, because by granting temporary injunction relief in the suit is being granted. That should not be done by the court. No doubt, in specific cases temporary injunction may be granted. The procedure of granting temporary injunction should not be adopted as a general and normal course.

Gauhati High Court

State Of Assam And Anr. vs M.S. Associates on 2 May, 1994

Bench: J Sarma, S Neelam

 Citation: AIR1994Gau105, (1994)2GLR104

Print Page

Whether loss to govt can be presumed when there is delay in completion of public project?

There is no dispute that the appellant failed to execute the work
of construction of sewerage pumping station within the stipulated or
extended time.
The said pumping station certainly was of public
utility to maintain and preserve clean environment, absence of which
could result in environmental degradation by stagnation of water in
low lying areas.
Delay also resulted in loss of interest on blocked
capital as rightly observed in para 7 of the impugned judgment of the
High Court.
In these circumstances, loss could be assumed, even
without proof and burden was on the appellant who committed
breach to show that no loss was caused by delay or that the amount
stipulated as damages for breach of contract was in the nature of
penalty. Even if technically the time was not of essence, it could not
be presumed that delay was of no consequence.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS...1440-1441 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.35365-35366 OF 2012)
M/S. CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN SERVICES
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Dated;FEBRUARY 4, 2015

Print Page

Construction of court building Vs interest of private party

  The trial court has rightly observed that if there is no 
document   which   show   that   the   suit   property   has   been 
earmarked as separate land for N.A.use, then, the acquisition 
record cannot be brushed aside.  The award is made by the very 
same revenue officer in his capacity as Special Land Acquisition 
Officer.   He  had before him all the maps, measurements and 
records   and   it   is   only   then,   he   considered   the   claim   of   the 
appellants   for   compensation.     In   these   circumstances,   to 
displace and  dislodge the statements made in the award and 
which is of 18th  April 1992 at this prima facie state would be 
improper.  The learned Judge has referred to each of the maps 
and it is erroneous on the part of the appellants to urge that 

they have been brushed aside.  The learned Judge has referred 
to them and equally to the further steps taken culminating in 
the order dated 24th  February 2012.   It is after considering all 
these   materials,   that   he   arrived   at   a   conclusion   that   the 
appellants   –   plaintiffs   have   failed   to   make   out   a   prima   facie 
case.  The Balance of convenience is also not in their favour and 

they will not suffer grave or irreparable loss, harm and injury 
but construction of the court building is a public project and if it 
is stopped at this stage, that would be not in public interest. 
The overwhelming public interest  is paramount in such cases 
whereas   if   the   appellants   ultimately   succeed,   they   can   be 
compensated in terms of money or with appropriate direction.



APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.724 OF 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Kisham V
. Chintam

Vs

District Collector, Thane

CORAM
: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 

26th March 2013.

Pronounced on :
   Citation;2014(3) MHLJ629 Bom

Print Page