Whether court should grant interim relief if final relief can not be granted?

In The State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta MANU/SC/0012/1951 : [1952]1SCR28 a Constitution Bench of this Court clearly spelt out the contours within which interim relief can be granted. The Court said that 'an interim relief can be granted only in aid of, and as ancillary to, the main relief which may be available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or proceedings. If this be the purpose to achieve which power to grant temporary relief is conferred, it is inconceivable that where the final relief cannot be granted in the terms sought for because the statute bars granting such a relief ipso facto the temporary relief of the same nature cannot be granted. To illustrate this point, let us take the relief which the Bank seeks in its suit. The prayer is that the Corporation be restrained by an injunction of the Court from presenting a winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 or under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. In other words, the Bank seeks to restrain the Corporation by an injunction of the court from instituting a proceeding for winding-up of the Bank. There is a clear bar in Section 41(b) against granting this relief. The Court has no jurisdiction to grant a perpetual injunction restraining a person from instituting a proceeding in a court not subordinate to it, as a relief, ipso facto temporary relief cannot be granted in the same terms.

12. The interim relief can obviously be not granted also because the object behind granting interim relief is to maintain status quo ante so that the final relief can be appropriately moulded without the party's position being altered during the pendency of the proceedings.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7348 of 1983

Decided On: 19.09.1983

 Cotton Corporation of India Limited Vs. United Industrial Bank Limited and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

D.A. Desai and V. Balakrishna Eradi, JJ.

Citation:AIR 1983 SC 1272).

Print Page

Whether order of issuing notice on interim injunction application is revisable?

A clear reading of this provision of the Act would indicate that in cases where no appeal lies to the Bench that it is competent for the Appellate Authority to revise the order in question if the occasion so arises. The power to revise orders passed by a Single Judge has thus been clearly invested with the Appellate Bench. The learned Judges appear to have been carried away by the decision of this Court in C.R.A. No. 33 of 1977, where an observation has been made to the effect that no revision application under section 29(3) of the Rent Act would lie to the Bench of Small Causes Court in the case of procedural orders and orders which do not permanently affect the substantive rights of the parties under the Rent Act. To my mind, there is a clear misapplication of the ratio of this decision in the present case. Undoubtedly, Sapre, J., (as he then was) made the aforesaid observations in a situation where the revision was virtually without substance or in other words, where there was no justification for the Bench to revise the order of the lower courts.

5. Mr. Ketkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted, with full justification to my mind, that as far as the present proceeding is concerned, the petitioner genuinely apprehended a situation whereby he would have been dispossessed and, therefore, he prayed for an injunction order. This was neither a mere procedural situation nor could it be said that it was a case where the substantive rights of the parties under the Rent Act were being affected. Under these circumstances the aforesaid decision could not have had any application. Mr. Ketkar has also relied on section 42 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 and in particular sub-section (4) thereof which reads as follows :

42(4). Where no appeal lies under this sub-section from a decree or order in any suit or proceeding, the Bench of two Judges specified in sub-section (1) may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that the decree or order was according to law, call for the case in which such decree or order was made and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit."

Mr. Ketkar is right when he points out that sub-section (4) very clearly makes provision for a situation whereby the Appellate Bench in appropriate cases can call for the record and proceedings and can exercise its revisional powers even though an appeal does not lie in such cases. As indicated by me above, the present case was certainly one of those situations where the revisional powers ought to have been exercised, and as is apparent from the speaking orders passed, by the Appellate Bench, where such powers had in fact been exercised at the interim stage. To this extent, the final order dated 27-8-1981 was clearly faulty and is liable to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3091 of 1981

Decided On: 10.12.1991

Yusuf Ibrahim Pawaskar Vs. Karamchand Narayan Tandon by his heirs and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.F. Saldanha, J.

Citation: 1991(4) BomCR 549,1993 MHLJ 71,1994 BomRC 140 (Bom)

Print Page

Whether court can grant injunction even if there is no application for injunction?

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
has no objection to the impugned order, by which the preliminary
issue   has   been   framed.   However,   the   petitioner   is   aggrieved   by
denial of interim relief, which, the petitioner is entitled to press in
terms of Section 9A(2) of the CPC.
3] In this case, the impugned order does not reject any interim
relief. All that, learned Trial Judge has observed that there was no
application   for   interim   relief   and   in   the   absence   of   any   such
application, there is no question of consideration of any prayer for

interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in
the reply filed to the motion for framing of preliminary issue, the
petitioner had applied for interim relief. 
4] From the perusal of the reply, there does not appear to be any
such prayer. In any case, it is only appropriate that the petitioner, if,
is   seriously   interested   in   any   interim   relief   should   take   out   an
appropriate   application,   which   can   always   be   considered   in
accordance with law by learned Trial Court. Accordingly, there is
absolutely no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO. 8396 OF 2017
Shadaab S. Patel  vs. Oscar Builders Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
   
CORAM :  M. S. SONAK, J.
DATE     :    18 SEPTEMBER 2017.

Print Page

Whether court will grant interim injunction if final relief cannot be granted?

 It is settled law that no interim injunction would be issued if the final relief cannot be granted. As was held in K. P. M. Aboobucker v. K. Kunhamoo, Air 1958 Mad 287: "An interim relief is granted to a person on the footing that that person is prima facie entitled to the right on which is based the claim for the main relief as well as the interim relief. That relief is granted as an interim measure till the disposal of the suit in which is to be investigated the validity of the claim or right that has been put forward. If no such claim has been put forward in the suit, it means that there can be no occasion for investigation of such a claim in the suit, there can be no justification for the grant of an interim relief which will just lapse on the termination of the suit, but which will leave the parties in the same position in which they were before the institution of the suit. in the course of which the interim relief was sought and obtained. That is not the scope of O. 39, Rule 1."

Delhi High Court

Raman Hosiery Factory, Delhi And ... vs J.K. Synthetics Ltd. And Ors. on 9 January, 1974

Equivalent citations: AIR 1974 Delhi 207, 1975 45 CompCas 374 Delhi

Bench: P Narain

Print Page

Whether court should issue summon compelling presence of deponent for cross examination whose affidavit is filed during proceeding for interim injunction?

 It is also clear from the provisions of Order 19, Rule 2, C.P.C. that the court may order the attendance of the deponent for the cross-examination. Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains no provision empowering the court to issue process to enforce the attendance of the deponents. If the party fails to produce the deponents of the affidavits filed by the for cross-examination despite order of the court, affidavit of the deponent failing to attend the court has to be ignored. When a party is successful to procure the affidavit, it can well bring the deponent to the court for his cross-examination. His insistence for the issue of process to complete his attendance may to indicate that he is interested in delaying the disposal of the case.

Rajasthan High Court

Chotu Khan vs Abdul Karim on 12 March, 1991

Equivalent citations: AIR 1991 Raj 119, 1991 (2) WLC 219, 1991 (2) WLN 140

Bench: M C Jain

Print Page

Whether plaintiff can be directed to deposit entire consideration at ad interim stage in suit for specific performance of contract?

In the appeal filed by the plaintiff it has been submitted that the Learned Single Judge was in error in granting an injunction subject to the condition that the plaintiff deposits the entire balance of the consideration of Rs. 9.21 Crores. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been submitted that the Learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that it was the defendant who had committed prima facie a breach of the agreement of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 3rd April, 2006. In the circumstances, it would be wholly inequitable to direct the plaintiff to deposit the entire balance of the consideration of Rs. 9.21 Crores at the ad interim stage while not enforcing the obligations cast upon the defendant firstly, to obtain a deed of reconveyance of the property which was mortgaged, secondly, to put the plaintiff in possession with a right to construct and develop and thirdly, to complete, the entire transaction against the payment of the balance consideration.

9. We are of the view that there is merit in the submission urged on behalf of plaintiff and to that extent the Appeal of the plaintiff would have to be allowed. As we have already noted, Clause 4(b) of the agreement provided that the payment of the second instalment of Rs. 3.75 Crores was to be made subject to the defendant fulfilling his obligations viz. of obtaining a deed of reconveyance from the mortgagee; and placing the plaintiff in possession of the property with a right to develop and construct thereon. At the ad interim stage, it would in our view be inappropriate to direct the plaintiff to deposit the entire balance of the consideration amount of Rs. 9.21 Crores without the defendant being required to fulfil his part of the remaining obligations. The question of deposit, if any, should, in our view, be more appropriately considered at the hearing of the Notice of Motion. The order of the Learned Single Judge to the extent to which the grant of an ad interim injunction was made conditional on a deposit of Rs. 9.21 Crorog would to the extent of the condition imposed have to be quashpd and set aside.

Bombay High Court

Yusuf Mohamed Lakdawala vs Sudhakar Kashinath Bokade on 11 October, 2007

Equivalent citations: 2008 (2) MhLj 682

Bench: S Kumar, D Chandrachud

Print Page

Interim injunction should be granted for limited duration

We would also like to add a word of caution for the Civil Courts. In recent times this Court has come across several cases where unscrupulous builders and developers have misused and abused process of the Court. The usual modus operandi adopted by such persons is to obtain ex parte ad interim orders which inevitably remain in force for a long time and even during the said period further unauthorised construction is raised by misusing the interim orders granted by the Court. We feel that Courts should restrict grant of ad interim orders only in a limited time and in the meantime call upon the local authorities to file their reply and then decide the said application by giving priority to such matters. Further it would be desirable in such cases that at the time of granting ad interim reliefs the Court should appoint a Commissioner to inspect the construction. This would help to curb the practice of misusing the interim order passed by the Courts.

Bombay High Court

Subhash Krishna Kanitkar vs The Bhiwandi Nizampura Municipal ... on 31 July, 2000

Equivalent citations: (2000) 3 BOMLR 573

Bench: A Shah, V Daga

Print Page

When court can not grant interim injunction in suit for partition?

Application for ad interim injunction filed in suit for partition-all co-sharers not joined as parties in suit -In absence of co-sharers no interim order can be passed-Vacation of ad interim order of injunction proper.

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)

Sk. Riyasat Ali vs Sk. Safiuddin Ahamed & Ors on 25 June, 2015

Print Page

Whether co-operative court can pass order of interim injunction?

 Admittedly, the dispute/claim of the Bank is pending.
Section 95 so read and referred along with other sections and the
provisions just cannot be overlooked while considering the case for
grant of interlocutory orders including injunction pending the main
dispute. There is no other provision available under the MCS Act for
passing and/or grant of interlocutory order by a court pending the
dispute if case is made out that the opponent/defendants to defeat
and/or would obstruct the execution and about to dispose of the
whole or any part of his property or about to remove the whole or
any part of his property from the jurisdiction of the Court, the
Registrar or the concerned office. The power is also provided to
insist for adequate security apart from conditional attachment of the
property. Section 95(4) further empowers the Cooperative Court, the
Registrar or the authorised person, as the case may be, may, in order
to prevent the ends of justice being defeated make such interlocutory
orders pending the decision in a dispute referred which they appear to
be just and convenient.
 This specific provision, in my view, though, in a given case,
need to read and refer along with the principle of Order 39, Rule 1 of

CPC, yet the power of Cooperative Court to grant such injunction
and/or interlocutory order just cannot be restricted as submitted by
the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners based upon the
Division Bench judgment in Swan Mills Limited (supra).
It is settled that the Court needs to consider the facts and
circumstances of each case. The facts are dissimilar
so also the
provisions so read and involved in the present writ petition. The
statute provides specific provisions and permit the party to get such
interlocutory orders pending the award and/or dispute. There is no
remedy available for such protective reliefs. The invocation of
present provisions by the Bank and the reasoned decision given by the
Authorities cannot be stated to be illegal, contrary to any provision
and/or even to the judgment so referred above by the learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner [Swan Mills Ltd. (supra) ]. Both the
authorities are within the power and jurisdiction to pass such
interlocutory orders even of injunction as passed in the present case to
avoid further complication and to defeat and/or delay and/or obstruct
the execution of any award by recording clear finding that prima facie
case is made out and the balance of convenience and equity lies in
favour of the Bank and so also the aspect of an irreparable injury. The
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETTION NO. 8650 OF 2013
Shri Shankar Govind Mali and ors. .... Petitioners
vs
Kolhapur District Central Cooperative Bank
Limited and ors. 
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
DATE : February 04, 2015
Citation;2015(2) MHLJ 441

Print Page

Whether court can set aside issues framed by lower court in revision if parties were not heard prior to framing of issues?

Rule 5 of Order XIV of the C.P.C. amply empowers the Court to amend or strike out issues as and when required during the pendency of the suit. The powers given to the Court in that regard undoubtedly are to be exercised based on the materials available before the Court and which can be utilised for the purpose of framing or re-framing of the issues. It is primarily for the Court to apply its mind to the pleadings and the other materials, as specified in Rule 3 of Order XIV for the purpose of framing of the issues. Undoubtedly, the parties and their Advocates are not forbidden from assisting the Court in matter of framing of the issues. However, no party as a matter of right can insist for being heard in the matter prior to the framing or re-framing of the issues by the Court. Framing of the issues is an obligation of the Court in order to find out the exact nature of the controversy and to narrow down the scope of the dispute between the parties so as to enable both the parties to the proceedings to know the exact nature of the case which they are required to meet in the proceedings.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Appln. No. 752 of 2002

Decided On: 05.09.2002

Appellants: Shraddha Associates and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: St. Patrick's Town Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

Citation; 2003(3)BomCR814, 2003(2)MhLj219;2003 (1) ALL M R 674

Print Page

Whether court should grant interim injunction if it can not grant final relief?

 It is settled law that no interim injunction would be issued if the final relief cannot be granted. As was held in K. P. M. Aboobucker v. K. Kunhamoo, Air 1958 Mad 287: "An interim relief is granted to a person on the footing that that person is prima facie entitled to the right on which is based the claim for the main relief as well as the interim relief. That relief is granted as an interim measure till the disposal of the suit in which is to be investigated the validity of the claim or right that has been put forward. If no such claim has been put forward in the suit, it means that there can be no occasion for investigation of such a claim in the suit, there can be no justification for the grant of an interim relief which will just lapse on the termination of the suit, but which will leave the parties in the same position in which they were before the institution of the suit. in the course of which the interim relief was sought and obtained. That is not the scope of O. 39, Rule 1."

Delhi High Court

Raman Hosiery Factory, Delhi And ... vs J.K. Synthetics

 Ltd. And Ors. on 9 January, 1974

Equivalent citations: AIR 1974 Delhi 207,

 1975 45 CompCas 374 Delhi

Bench: P Narain

Print Page