Principle regarding temporary injunction reiterated
- shrey singh
- Jan 7, 2020
- 2 min read
AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISE LIMITED
v.
KS INFRASPACE LLP LIMITED AND ANOTHER
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9346 OF 2019 decided on January 6,2020
2 Judges Bench
Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ.
The Supreme Court in this case reiterated the principle governing injunction. The Court Relying upon the case of Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719 said that a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that noninterference 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. The third condition also is that “the balance of convenience” must be in favour of granting injunction. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties,if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit.
Comments