Supreme Court: What three aspects are to be considered while granting stay?

While granting stay, this Court must consider three aspects-

(i) Balance of convenience

(ii) Irreparable harm or injury

(iii) That there is a prima facie case.{Para 9}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8899 of 2019

Decided On: 15.11.2019

State of Mizoram and Ors. Vs. Pooja Fortune Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.

Author: Deepak Gupta, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1883/2019.

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court judgment on grant of Temporary Mandatory Injunction

The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guideline. Generally stated these guidelines are:

(1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction.

(2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.

(3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2422 of 1989

Decided On: 13.02.1990

Dorab Cawasji Warden  Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden and others

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L.M. Sharma and V. Ramaswami, JJ.

Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 867, 1990 SCR (1) 332

Print Page

Whether court can reject application for temporary injunction even though prima facie case is in favour of plaintiff?

Yet, the settled principle of law is that even where prima facie case is in favour of the plaintiff, the Court will refuse temporary injunction if the injury suffered by the plaintiff on account of refusal of temporary injunction was not irreparable. In Dalpat Kumar & Anr. v. Prahlad Singh & Ors. [(1992) 1 SCC 719] this Court held:

“Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the Court would result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely, one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages.”

Reportable 

Supreme Court of India

M/S Best Sellers Retail(I)P.Ltd vs M/S Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.& Ors on 8 May, 2012

Bench: A.K. Patnaik, Swatanter Kumar

Citation:AIR 2012 SC 2448
 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4313-4314 OF 2012

Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 34627-34628 OF 2010)

Print Page

What are “three pillars” on which foundation of every order of injunction rests?

 However, the law that is well settled is also that to sustain validly a claim for temporary injunction, it is not only that plaintiff has to establish his prima facie case, but he has to also establish further that balance of convenience lay in his favour and that he would suffer irreparable injury if the temporary injunction prayed was not granted. That was said by this Court in Shankarlal Rathore (supra) as also in a Bench decision of this Court in Durg Transport Company, AIR 1965 Madh Pra 142 which also Shri Kaushik cited to support the impugned order. In the last mentioned ease, it was held that temporary injunction "is never granted to establish a new state of things differently from the state which existed at the date when the proceedings were initiated". No doubt that this requirement is relatable to the finding of balance of convenience to be made by the Court in considering any prayer for temporary injunction. I had also an occasion to stress the primacy of the inexorable Rule that the three prerequisites must coexist and must precede an order of temporary injunction to validate exercise of jurisdiction by the Court concerned on the finding reached on the question of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. (See Saidur Rahman v. Stale of Assam, (1985) 1 Gauhati LR 438. In the case of Rajkumar Sanahal Singh, AIR 1985 Gauh 71, I look the view that in considering the question of balance of convenience, the Court has to consider the comparative mischief or inconvenience of both the parties and that the plaintiff who wants an order of injunction will further have to satisfy the Court that he will suffer irreparable injury if injunction is not issued. Very pertinently, it was further held that it was the nature of the injury which determined the balance of convenience.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ganpatlal vs Nandlal Haswani And Ors. on 12 September, 1988

Equivalent citations: AIR 1989 MP 209, 1990 (0) MPLJ 542

Bench: T Singh

Print Page