Preventive Relief | Law of Contracts - CLAT PG PDF Download

Injunctions

• According to Burney, an injunction is a legal action aimed at stopping someone from infringing upon another person's rights.
• Lord Halsbury provides a widely accepted definition, describing an injunction as a court order directing a party to either refrain from or carry out a specific action.
• An injunction is directed at individuals and does not transfer with the property. For instance, if A obtains an injunction against B to prevent him from building a wall, and A later sells the property to C, the injunction against B remains in effect.
• Injunctions can be issued against individuals, public entities, or even the State.
• Violating an injunction can lead to consequences such as attachment or sale of property, as per Section 94(c) and Rule 2A of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
• Three key features of injunctions are:
• Judicial Process:Injunctions are a form of judicial intervention.
• Restraint or Prevention:The relief granted through an injunction involves preventing or restraining an action.
• Wrongful Act:The action being prevented or restrained is considered wrongful.

Kinds of Injunction

Preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by injunction that could be either temporary or perpetual. (Section 36)

Temporary Injunction (Section 37)

Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC governs the procedure for granting temporary injunction.

When injunction may be granted

1. For the protection of interest in the property

This category will cover the following cases:

• (a) That property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree; or
• (b) That the defendant threatens to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud his creditors; and
• (c) That the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit.

2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach

In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury, of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may at any time after the commencement of the suit and either after or before judgment, apply to the court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or an injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury arising out of the same contract.

Injunction as Discretionary Relief

• The court's authority to issue an injunction is based on discretion, meaning it is not an automatic right for individuals to obtain one.
• Section 36 clearly states that "Preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by an injunction, temporary or perpetual."

Conditions for Granting Temporary Injunction (TI)

When seeking a Temporary Injunction (TI), certain conditions must be met:

1. Establishing a Prima Facie Case

• The plaintiff needs to demonstrate aprima facie case, which means showing asubstantial questionthat needs investigation.
• It's not necessary to prove a clear title, but there should be abona fide disputethat requires the court's attention.
• The plaintiff must show the existence of aprima facie rightand an infringement of that right as a prerequisite for granting a TI.
• The court should be convinced that refusing the TI would causeirreparable injuryto the plaintiff, and that no other remedy is available to protect the plaintiff from the anticipated harm.
• The concept ofirreparable injurydoesn't imply that the injury cannot be repaired at all, but rather that it is significant and cannot be adequately compensated with damages. An injury is considered irreparable when there is no clear monetary standard for measuring the damages.

2. Irreparable Injury

• The applicant must demonstrate that they will sufferirreparable injuryif the injunction is not granted, and that there are no other means available to protect themselves from the anticipated harm.
• The court needs to be convinced that refusing the injunction would lead toirreparable injuryfor the party seeking relief, and that judicial intervention is necessary to safeguard their rights and interests.

3. Plaintiff's Conduct

• The plaintiff must come to the court withclean hands. If the plaintiff suppresses important facts or documents, they may not be entitled to the relief of injunction.
• In such cases, the considerations ofbalance of convenienceandirreparable injurymay not even need to be examined.

4. Balance of Convenience

• The court must be convinced that thebalance of conveniencetilts in favor of granting the injunction, and that monetary compensation would not provide adequate relief.
• The comparativemischief,hardship, orinconvenienceto the applicant by refusing the injunction should be greater than the impact on the opposite party by granting it.
• In cases where apermanent injunctionis not sought in the final prayer, atemporary injunctionis typically not granted.
• The principles governing the grant of aperpetual injunctionalso apply to the grant of atemporary injunction.

Perpetual/Permanent Injunction

• A perpetual or permanent injunction is a legal remedy that prohibits a party from performing a specific act indefinitely.
• According to Section 37(2) of the relevant legal provisions, a permanent injunction can only be granted based on the merits of the case.
• A permanent injunction is different from a temporary injunction in that it conclusively determines the rights of the parties involved in the legal dispute.
• A temporary injunction, on the other hand, is granted based on a prima facie case, which means there is enough evidence at first glance to support the request for an injunction.
• In summary, a permanent injunction is a final and definitive legal remedy that is granted after careful consideration of the case's merits, while a temporary injunction is a provisional measure granted based on initial evidence.

When is a Perpetual Injunction Granted?

According to Section 38 of the relevant legal framework, a perpetual injunction may be granted in the following situations:

1. To Prevent Breach of Obligation

A perpetual injunction can be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favor of the applicant. This obligation may arise from various sources, including:

• Tort
• Contract
• Trust
• Any Legal Obligation

For example, if Ram, a tenant, attempts to remove a gold statue from a prayer room at Shyam's flat despite Shyam's request not to do so, the court may grant a permanent injunction to ensure Ram complies with Shyam's request.

2. Obligations Arising from Contract

When the obligation arises from a contract, the court follows specific rules and provisions. For instance:

• If a contract is capable of specific performance, the court may grant an injunction to prevent its breach.
• If a contract involves a positive act and a negative agreement, the court can enforce the negative covenant even if the positive act is not subject to specific performance.

For instance, if A contracts with B to sing exclusively at B's theatre for twelve months and not to sing elsewhere, B can obtain an injunction preventing A from singing elsewhere, even if the contract to sing at the theatre cannot be specifically enforced.

3. Trustee-Related Situations

A perpetual injunction may be granted when the defendant acts as a trustee of the property for the plaintiff. For example, if an advocate (A) threatens to disclose confidential documents belonging to their client (B) without consent, B can seek a permanent injunction to prevent A from doing so. Advocates have a legal obligation not to disclose their clients' secrets.

4. Absence of Damage Standard

If there is no standard for determining the actual damage caused or likely to be caused to the plaintiff due to the invasion of their rights, a perpetual injunction may be granted. For instance, if the installation of an electric transformer in front of the plaintiff's land causes nuisance and obstruction to access, the court may issue a permanent injunction to restrain the installation.

5. Inadequacy of Monetary Compensation

A perpetual injunction may be sought when monetary compensation would not provide adequate relief for the invasion of the plaintiff's rights. For example, an author may seek an injunction to prevent a publisher from publishing their book without consent.

6. Prevention of Multiple Judicial Proceedings

Injunctions may be granted to prevent multiple judicial proceedings in similar cases. For instance, if Arya has multiple tenants failing to pay rent and files separate suits against them, the court may allow an injunction to prevent multiple proceedings with the same cause of action.

Conditions for Section 38 to be Applicable

1. There must be a legal right, either express or implied, in favor of the applicant.
2. This right should be violated, or there should be a threat of invasion.
3. The right in question must be an existing one.
4. The case should be suitable for the exercise of the court's discretion.
5. The case should not fall within the scope of the restraining provisions outlined in Section 41 of the SRA, 1963.

Refusal of Injunctive Relief

According to Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, injunctive relief cannot be granted in certain situations:

(a)To restrain a person from continuing a judicial proceeding that was already underway at the time the suit was filed, unless such a restraint is necessary to prevent multiple proceedings.

In the case of Kukkala Balakrishna v. Vijaya Oil Mills, where there was a dispute over the sale of immovable property, the court highlighted the importance of preventing multiple proceedings when granting injunctive relief.

(b)To prevent a person from initiating or continuing a legal proceeding in a court that is not subordinate to the court from which the injunction is sought.

(c)To stop a person from making an application to any legislative body.

(d)To prevent a person from initiating or continuing a criminal proceeding.

In the case of Sangram Singh v. State of U.P., the court ruled that no injunction can be issued to prevent a person or authority from filing a First Information Report (FIR). Additionally, a temporary injunction cannot be granted if a permanent one is not feasible.

(e)To prevent the breach of a contract that cannot be specifically enforced.

(f)To prevent an act from being considered a nuisance when it is not clear that it will be a nuisance.

(g)To prevent a continuing breach that the plaintiff has accepted or tolerated.

(h)When an equally effective remedy can be obtained through another usual legal process, except in cases of breach of trust.

If a wrong can be remedied by monetary compensation, such compensation is considered an equally effective remedy. However, if the defendant is insolvent or impoverished, a decree for damages would be meaningless, and in such cases, the court may grant an injunction instead.

(i)When the plaintiff or their agents have acted in a manner that disqualifies them from seeking the court's assistance. This principle is encapsulated in the maxim "He who comes to equity must come with clean hands." For instance, in the case of Premji Ratansey Shah v. UOI, the court determined that no injunction could be granted in favor of a trespasser or someone who had unlawfully gained possession against the rightful owner.

(j)When the plaintiff lacks a personal interest in the matter at hand.

Mandatory Injunction

Section 39 of the Code addresses the situation where it becomes necessary to compel the performance of certain acts to prevent a breach of obligation. In such cases, the court has the discretion to grant an injunction not only to prevent the complained-of breach but also to compel the performance of the requisite act. When the injunction commands the defendant to perform a specific action, it is referred to as a mandatory injunction.

Salmond defines a mandatory injunction as an order that requires the defendant to undertake a positive act to rectify a wrongful situation created by them or to fulfill legal obligations. For example, it could involve ordering the demolition of a building that obstructs the plaintiff's light, which the defendant has constructed.

Illustrations:

• If A builds a new structure that blocks the light to a window that B has a right to under the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, B can seek an injunction not only to stop A from continuing the construction but also to remove the part of the building that obstructs B's light.

When granting a mandatory injunction under this section, the court must consider two key elements:

1. Determining the necessary acts to prevent a breach of the obligation.
2. Ensuring that the required acts are enforceable by the court.

When a Mandatory Injunction is Not Granted

A mandatory injunction is a legal remedy that compels a party to take a specific action. However, there are certain situations where such an injunction may not be granted. Here are the key points:

• Adequate Relief:If monetary compensation is deemed sufficient to address the plaintiff's grievances, a mandatory injunction may not be necessary.
• Balance of Convenience:If the balance of convenience leans in favor of the defendant, the court may decide against granting the injunction.
• Acquiescence:If the plaintiff has allowed the obstructions to be completed before approaching the court, demonstrating acquiescence in the defendant's actions, a mandatory injunction may be denied. For instance, in the case ofDaniya Bai v. Jiwan,the court refused to order demolition because the brother had initially consented to his sister's construction activities.
• Restoration of Status Quo:A mandatory injunction is typically limited to restoring the status quo and cannot be used to create a new state of affairs. In the case ofSheo Nath v. Ali,the court did not order the defendant to build a wall on his roof to obstruct the view of the plaintiff's house, as this would have altered the existing situation.

Damages in Lieu of or in Addition to Injunction (Section 40)

• Section 40 allows a plaintiff in a suit for injunction under Section 38 or 39 to claim damages either in addition to or instead of the injunction.
• The court can award such damages only if they are included in the plaintiff's plaint.
• If a suit is dismissed without claiming damages, a separate suit for damages cannot be filed later.

Difference between Temporary/lnterim Injunction and Permanent/Perpetual Injunction

Difference between Perpetual injunction and Mandatory injunction