by the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience." Singh's analysis carries the interpretation that since an injunction is an equitable remedy, its issuance rests on the court's own judgment of fairness and suitability in the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

Justice P.N. Bhagwati: "The judicial approach of Justice P.N. Bhagwati, in almost all cases, seems to point out the importance of an injunction order for the protection and enforcement of fundamental rights and maintenance of justice.

The former Chief Justice of India, P.N. Bhagwati, has said that an injunction order was highly essential to protect the rights of the individual and to see that the rule of law was maintained. From the interpretation of his Lordship, it appears that an injunction order issues not only to prevent an irreparable injury but also to maintain the constitutional and legal propriety.

J.C. Jain: J.C. Jain looks more at the procedural aspects and the requirement of precision in the wording of an injunction. According to Jain, for avoidance of vagueness and to prevent misuse, an injunction is required to be worded in precise terms. A well-defined injunction is essential for better implementation and to lessen any chance of ambiguity that may give rise to disputes or misinterpretation.

Nature of Injunction

Equitable Remedy:

-Injunctions are issued based on fair play and equitable principles and issues of fairness. They are not granted as of course but have been awarded at discretion to the court with the aim of achieving fair and just results.

Preventive and Mandatory Injunctions:

-A preventive injunction would be the kind of injunction that prevents one party from taking an action when that action would be harmful or illegal. It is therefore meant to serve mainly the purpose of preventing illegal acts.

-It is an injunction that compels one of the parties to perform an act or discharge some sort of duty. It gives enforcement to do a certain thing or to perform a particular duty upon a party who is bound by duty to perform such acts.

Discretionary:

-Injunctions are only granted by courts in their discretion. The Courts, while considering an injunction order, apply various factors such as prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.

-Temporary Injunction issued in order to preserve the status quo of the existing state of affairs during the pendency of the proceedings. It is a provisional measure aimed at maintaining the status quo until a final determination.

-Permanent Injunction is awarded after a full-scale trial and thus enabling long-term, which might proscribe or provide for action to be taken, as determined by the court.

Scope of Injunctions

Granting Conditions:

-The applicant must show that an issue exists that is proper and justiciable-justifying judicial intervention.

-It must be proven that the harm or injury sustained cannot be equivalently remedied with money.

-The balance of convenience or where granting the injunction would be more expedient and fair in the circumstances would be decided by the court.

-A remedy at law is adequate: Injunctions are resorted to only when monetary damages prevailing in law will not be able to cure the grievance.

Preventive Relief:

-The essential role of an injunction grants preventive relief, a legal way of temporarily or permanently enjoining one party from committing an act that may cause an injury or violation of legal rights. While compensatory measures are designed to redress an already existing harm, the role of an injunction is preventative, not remedial.

Limitations and Restrictions:

-Injunctions cannot be used to compel personal service contracts or those that require a high degree of personal discretion.

-Even though related, injunctions are not specific performance orders. Specific performance requires a party to perform its contractual duties, whereas an injunction forces or restrains certain activities without actually compelling performance of a contract.

-No injunction can be made that would go against public policy or involve undue hardship.

Jurisdictional Scope:

-Injunctions are issued out of courts with appropriate jurisdiction over the matter. Jurisdiction is based on the nature of the dispute, the nature of the relief sought, and the parties' geographical locations.

Scope in Specific Contexts:

-Most commonly used in property disputes to prevent dispossession or illegal interference.

-They are granted to prevent infringement of intellectual property rights, such as trademarks and copyright.

-These are granted to prevent a breach of contract or to enforce certain terms of a contract, where the conditions for their issuance are met.

Application Scope:

Injunctions under the Specific Relief Act can be issued in a variety of cases, including:

-Protection of Property Rights, this would prevent unauthorized interference or trespass.

-Preventing Breach of Contract, where the rule of equity is utilized to enforce contracts upon the parties, or to prevent conduct which would constitute a breach of contractual obligations.

-Personal rights protection, this encompasses court cases that involve defamation of character or breach of personal confidence.

Classification of Injunctions

Injunctions are classified into three types:

-Temporary Injunctions

-Perpetual Injunctions

-Mandatory Injunctions

Chapter VII of Specific Relief Act deals with Injunctions under Section 36, which is stating that preventive relief which will be granted at the discretion of the court by way of temporary and perpetual injunctions. Section 37 has given definitions and conditions for granting temporary and perpetual injunctions. Chapter VIII explains perpetual injunctions. Section 38 has described the instances when the perpetual injunction may be granted. Section 39 is about mandatory injunctions. Furthermore, damages in lieu of or, in alternative in addition to an injunction awarded upon the plea of the plaintiff under Section 40. A grant of injunction shall not be made under circumstances provided in Section 41 and finally, even though specific performance cannot be enforced by a court, an injunction may be permitted to be issued to enforce a negative agreement where contract includes an affirmative agreement under Section 42.

Explanation:

1. Temporary Injunction

Introduction:

Temporary Injunctions are injunctions which remain operative for a certain specified period or until a further order is passed by the court. When a temporary injunction is issued, which means an order of the court to restrain a party from doing a particular act or to compel them to do a particular act till the duration of a limited period or until further orders are given by the court. These kinds of injunctions can be granted at any stage of a pending suit. The duration of a temporary injunction is discretionary upon the court.

The procedural laws regarding this are laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and can be issued under Section 37 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Purpose:

The primary objective of the temporary injunction is to protect the rights of any party or preserve the property in litigation pending the final judgment. Amongst others, before the issuance of a temporary injunction, a court considers the following factors:

-The applicant must appear to have a prima facie case, presenting a reasonable probability of success in the final adjudication.

-Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant, indicating that the hardship to the applicant exceeds any possible loss to the opposite party.

-Whether the applicant would incur irreparable harm or injury should a temporary injunction not be issued on his behalf.

Case Law:

Union of India v. Bhuneshwar Prasad

Patna High Court upheld the interim injunction issued by the District Judge, whereby, for the issuance of an interim injunction, the defendant shall not remove the plaintiff from service against the plaintiff a prima facie case is proved and balance of convenience is also in his favour.

Under CPC:

Temporary Injunction under Rule 1 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are issued in the following cases:

-Where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of the property with the intent to defraud the creditors.

-To restrain the defendant from disposing of the property or causing injury to the plaintiff concerning the disputed property .

-To restrain any breach of contract or other types of injury.

-To stay the operation of orders involving employment in the public service or in corporations connected with a state, and interdicts involving suspension or dismissal.

-To restrain elections or sales, even government auctions.

-Continue recovery proceeding of dues as land revenue provided sufficient security is furnished.

How a Temporary Injunction is Granted:

-Notice to the Opposite Party:

The court will have to give notice for the application of an injunction to the opposite party except in cases where delay defeats the very object of the injunction.

-Injunction Without Notice:

If such an injunction is granted without notice, the court shall record reasons of such urgency and direct the applicant to forthwith serve a copy of the application for injunction and the affidavit in support and the complaint and the relevant documents upon the opposite party by registered post.

File an affidavit on the date of or the following date from the date of the grant of the injunction, affirming that the copies have been sent.

-Time bound:

The Court is supposed to decide the suit within thirty days from the date of the grant of the injunction. If the court cannot make the decision within thirty days, it shall give reasons for the delay.

It ensures clarity and legal standards while delivering temporary injunctions to safeguard parties' rights and interests in litigation.

2. Perpetual Injunction

Introduction:

A perpetual injunction is an injunction decreeing after a full hearing and disposition on the merits. It grants relief that permanently restrains the defendant from asserting any rights or engaging in any conduct that would contravene the rights of the plaintiff.

A perpetual injunction refers to the court order that finally and for good provides relief in a legal dispute. It is considered part of the final judgment in a case and thus not temporal or interlocutory relief. Section 37(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, deals with the grant of a perpetual injunction. It states that a perpetual injunction shall be granted only by a decree passed on a suit duly tried and after full inquiry and consideration of all merits of the case. The defendant is, therefore, perpetually restrained from doing the act or committing aught in furtherance of mischief of which the plaintiff has complained against him.

Conditions for Granting a Perpetual Injunction:

Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 contains the provision for a perpetual injunction in following cases:

-Breach of Duty:

For preventing the breach of any duty cognizable by a court of law, whether arising specifically from any legal obligation or by virtue of general legal principles, subject to the provisions and rules contained in Chapter II of this Act.

-Contractual Obligations:

The court shall take into consideration the provisions and rules relating to a breach of contract, as laid down under the Act, if the obligations arise from a contract.

-Invasion of Property Rights:

A perpetual injunction may be granted in cases where:

The defendant is in possession of any property belonging to the plaintiff.

There is no means of measuring in monetary terms the actual damage caused or likely to be caused.

The type of invasion that would ensue cannot be compensated by an award of money damages.

The injunction will prevent numerous litigation by and against a multiplicity of persons.

Burden of Proof:

The plaintiff has to establish the breach of duty by proving a violation of his legal rights. The plaintiff also needs to prove legal possession of the property and that the defendant does not have any legal right over it. No injunction can be granted to protect wrongful possession against the owner.

Case Law:

Walter Louis Franklin v. George Singh (1996):

The court granted a perpetual injunction to the plaintiff to restrain the defendant from unlawfully using the plaintiff's land, confirming the plaintiff's possession against the defendant's claim of ownership.

Justice Mohd. Akram Chowdhary, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (2020):

While deciding a civil second appeal, it had been held that for grant of perpetual injunction, the plaintiff has to prove not only his ownership but also the settled possession over the property in dispute.

3. Mandatory Injunction

Introduction:

A mandatory injunction is an order to a party to perform something, especially to repair a breach of obligation, or to redress some wrongful act. Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with the grant of mandatory injunctions. This section, without defining what a mandatory injunction is, has laid down conditions when a mandatory injunction can be issued. A mandatory injunction is an order of the court that compels a party to perform a certain act, especially either to prevent a breach of an obligation or rectify a wrong committed already. Contrary to the interim reliefs, that are of a temporary nature, mandatory injunctions are designed to be of permanent nature and resorted to in very extraordinary cases, when for instance life or property is threatened.

Conditions for Granting a Mandatory Injunction:

i. Duty and Breach: There should be a legally bound duty on the defendant to do a particular act, and the plaintiff needs to prove that the same is breached.

ii. Enforceability: The court should be in a position to enforce the issued relief. The injunction granted should involve the positive action to be taken by the defendant in order to restore or reverse the wrongful act committed.

Case Law:

Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990):

The Supreme Court laid down the following requirements for the grant of a mandatory injunction:

-Strong Case Requirement, which would be higher than a prima facie case.

-The plaintiff will need to show that a mandatory injunction will be necessary so as to avoid irreparable damage or serious injury that cannot be adequately compensated in damages.

-The balance of convenience should be in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, showing that the grant of the injunction is just since it will serve in curing the harm.

N.E. Sankarasubbu Pillai v. Parvathi Ammal & Others (1960):

This was a case where the plaintiff filed a suit for a mandatory injunction against the defendants for encroachment on his land. A mandatory injunction was refused by the court as it found that the essential prerequisites to attract the grant of a mandatory injunction did not exist in the case.

C. Kunhammad v. C.H. Ahamad Haji (2000):

The plaintiff applied for a mandatory injunction against the defendant to remove the pipeline and the trench laid across his land without his consent or law. The learned court granted an injunction as, in its opinion, conditions for the grant of such relief were fulfilled and ordered the defendant to rectify the committed trespass.

Grounds of Refusal of Injunction

An injunction shall not be granted under section 41 of Specific Relief Act, in the following cases:

i. Pending Judicial Proceedings:

An injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any judicial proceeding pending at the commencement of the suit in which the injunction is sought unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of legal proceedings.

ii. Non-Subordinate Courts:

An injunction cannot be granted to restrain any party from instituting or continuing any proceeding in any court not subordinate to that from which an injunction is granted.

iii. Legislative Bodies:

An injunction shall not be granted to restrain any person from making an application or representation to any Legislature.

iv. Criminal Proceedings:

An injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings in relation to any criminal matter.

v. Non-Specific Performance Contracts:

The injunction cannot be granted to restrain the breach of a contract unless the contract itself is specifically enforceable.

vi. Uncertain Nuisance:

An injunction cannot be granted to prevent an act on the ground of nuisance, if it cannot be reasonably certain that the act will be a nuisance.

vii. Acquiescence in Breach:

An injunction cannot be granted to prevent a continuing breach, to which the plaintiff has acquiesced or accepted.

viii. Alternative Remedies:

An injunction will not be granted when the party seeking it may have an equally effective remedy by ordinary legal proceedings, except in cases of breach of trust.

ix. Conduct of Plaintiff:

No injunction can be granted where the conduct of the plaintiff or their agents has been such as to disentitle them to the assistance of the court.

x. Want of Private Interest:

No injunction can be granted if the plaintiff has no private interest in the subject-matter of the suit.

Enforcement of Negative Agreement by Injunction ( Section 42):

Even where under clause (e) of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a contract contains an undertaking to do an act, coupled with a negative covenant, express or implied not to do another act, and the court is unable to compel specific performance of the undertaking, an injunction may be granted.

An injunction to enforce the negative covenant may be issued only if the plaintiff has not been in default of his own contractual obligations binding upon him. In other words, even while the court cannot specifically enforce the affirmative terms of the contract, it can still grant an injunction to enforce the negative terms provided the plaintiff has fulfilled his obligations under the contract.

Landmark Judgment

Jai Dayal and Ors. v. Krishan Lal Garg and Anr. (1996)

The plaintiffs instituted a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants from causing any disturbance in their possession on grounds of breach of contract by encroachment.

The Supreme Court applied the dictums for a perpetual injunction order under the Specific Relief Act, 1963:

1. An injunction to finally restrain the defendant from violating the plaintiff's rights, where there is a continuous or repeated breach in

2. It stated expressively that to grant an injunction to a plaintiff, he needs to show:

- A legal right or interest clearly.

- Monetary damages are not enough for the injury.

- There is no other form of remedy available.

3. Shown that in property rights, when compensation of damages fails, an injunction may also apply.

4. Injunctions may prevent burdensome repetition of judicial acts and introduce means to accelerate proceedings.

The decision reiterated the points of applicability of grant of perpetual injunctions, right to property, which is basically permanent award when other reliefs fail or are not applicable.