Injunctions in Indian Law: A Detailed Analysis

Introduction

An injunction stands as a discretionary power vested in the courts to grant preventive relief. This equitable remedy entails a judicial order directing a party either to refrain from performing a specific act or to execute a particular action. The primary objective of an injunction is to uphold and safeguard the rights of the litigating parties and to forestall any potential breaches of existing obligations. Within the Indian legal framework, the power to grant injunctions is principally governed by two significant enactments: Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which primarily addresses temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders, and Part III of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which encompasses preventive relief, including both temporary and perpetual injunctions.

Temporary Injunction and Interlocutory Orders under Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Temporary Injunction

Rule 1 Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted outlines the conditions under which a court may grant a temporary injunction, which requires proof through affidavits or admissible evidence. There are three main scenarios where a temporary injunction can be issued:

1. When property involved in a lawsuit is at risk of being wasted, damaged, or wrongfully sold.
2. When a defendant attempts to dispose of property to defraud creditors.
3. When a defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or cause harm regarding disputed property.

In such cases, the court can issue orders to prevent these actions, ensuring that property is preserved and the plaintiff’s rights are protected.

Requisites of an Injunction Application

Additionally, the Supreme Court has established three key prerequisites for granting a temporary injunction in the case of Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh¹:

1. A prima facie case, meaning there is a genuine dispute with a strong likelihood of success.(In case of Martin Burn Lt. v R. N Banarjee², the Supreme Court opined that while determining whether a prima facie case ha been made out the relevant consideration is that whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived upon the evidence. )
   
2. The risk of irreparable harm to the applicant if the injunction is not granted.(The case of Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai³ the Supreme Court highlighted in this case emphasized that the applicant seeking a temporary injunction must clearly demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm or injury if the injunction were not granted, and that this harm must be of a nature that cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages at a later stage.)
   
3. The balance of convenience, where the hardship to the applicant from denying the injunction outweighs the inconvenience to the respondent from granting it.(The balance of convenience was defined by the Delhi High Court in the case of Elahi v Vinod Mishra as follows: Balance of Convenience means that a balance is drawn between when comparative mischief or inconvenience likely to arise while withholding the injunction and which is likely to arise while granting the injunction.)
   

The applicant must also approach the court without unreasonable delay. The court can grant a temporary injunction if the interests of justice require it, and these conditions are meant to prevent frivolous applications and ensure fairness in protecting the rights of both parties.

Rule 2 Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach deals with granting temporary injunctions to prevent the continuation or repetition of a breach of contract or other injuries. It allows the plaintiff to apply for an injunction at any stage of a suit, either before or after a final judgment. The injunction aims to stop the defendant from repeating the specific breach or injury, or any similar violation related to the same contract, property, or right, even if compensation is also sought.

The court has the discretion to impose various conditions, such as setting the injunction’s duration, requiring detailed accounts, or demanding security from the parties. The term “injury” is broadly interpreted, including situations where a decree is challenged on grounds like fraud or lack of legal authority.

Certain state amendments, like those in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, place restrictions on granting injunctions in specific cases, such as government service matters (e.g., transfers, dismissals, disciplinary actions) or government-related processes like elections and auctions, unless security is provided. These amendments limit judicial intervention in administrative or governmental actions to balance individual rights with the functioning of public institutions.

The Gauhati High Court in Tazmul Ali And Others v. Md. Ulairaja⁴ provided a broader interpretation of the term “injury” as used in Order 39 Rule 2. The court held that the execution of a decree could indeed constitute an “injury” within the meaning of this rule, particularly when the decree’s validity is challenged on grounds of fraud or if it lacks binding legal force. This expanded the scope of injunctions that can be granted under Rule 2 to restrain such potentially injurious actions. 

Rule 2A Consequences of disobedience or breach of injunction outlines the consequences for disobeying or breaching an injunction granted under Rule 1 or Rule 2. If a party fails to comply with an injunction, the court can take strict action, including attaching the person’s property or detaining them in civil prison for up to three months, unless released earlier. The attached property cannot be kept under attachment for more than one year; if the breach continues, the court may order the sale of the property. The proceeds from the sale can be used to compensate the injured party, with any remaining balance going to the rightful party.

Legal proceedings under Rule 2A are civil in nature but can have punitive effects similar to contempt proceedings. The liability for breaching an injunction persists even if the injunction is later set aside or the original suit is dismissed. Importantly, Rule 2A applies not only to the parties in the suit but also to any person found guilty of disobeying the injunction. The court’s power under this rule is similar to its power in civil contempt proceedings, with the main difference being the maximum duration of imprisonment.

 The Supreme Court, in the recent case of SMT LAVANYA C & ANR vs. VITTAL GURUDAS PAI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS⁵, reaffirmed the serious consequences of disobeying an injunction order passed under Order 39 Rule 2A. The court held that a party remains liable for wilful disobedience of an injunction even if the order is subsequently set aside or the suit is dismissed. This underscores the importance of complying with court orders while they are in effect. The Supreme Court also reiterated the fiduciary relationship between an advocate and their client concerning undertakings given to the court.

Rule 3 Before granting injunction, courts to direct notice to the opposite party: establishes the principle of natural justice in the context of granting injunctions, requiring the court to direct that notice be given to the opposite party before issuing an injunction. This ensures the opposing party has an opportunity to be heard. However, in exceptional cases where issuing a notice could defeat the purpose of the injunction, the court may grant an ex parte (without notice) injunction. In such cases, the court must record its reasons for dispensing with the notice.

 The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, in the case of K.K. Puri And Others v. A.K. Puri And Others⁶, has offered an important interpretation of Order 39 Rule 3, holding that the provisions of this rule are directory rather than mandatory in nature. This means that minor instances of non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Rule 3 do not automatically render an ex parte injunction invalid, provided that the overarching purpose and objective of the rule have been substantially satisfied.

Rule 3A Courts to dispose of application for injunction within thirty days  mandates that applications for injunctions granted without prior notice (ex parte) must be resolved within 30 days. This ensures that the injunction is not prolonged unnecessarily, allowing the opposing party a timely opportunity to present their case. If the court cannot resolve the application within this period, it must provide written reasons for the delay, ensuring judicial accountability.

Rule 4 Order or injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside allows parties who are dissatisfied with an injunction order to request its discharge (cancellation), variation (modification), or being set aside (annulled). The court can modify or cancel an injunction upon receiving an application from an aggrieved party, with certain conditions for review.

First, if a party provides false or misleading information in an application for a temporary injunction, and the injunction was granted without notice to the opposing party, the court must vacate the injunction. However, the court may choose not to vacate it if it deems it unjust to do so, provided it gives specific reasons.

Second, if an injunction has been granted after the opposing party had a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the court will not discharge, vary, or set aside the injunction at the request of that party unless there has been a significant change in circumstances or the injunction is causing undue hardship. Undue hardship is recognized as a valid reason for seeking a variation of the injunction.

When applying for a discharge or variation, the applicant must clearly state whether they seek a complete discharge or a modification and provide solid grounds for their request. If the request is based on changed circumstances, detailed information on the changes must be included, along with a demonstration that the balance of convenience now favors altering the injunction. The applicant must show that the harm they face outweighs the potential harm to the opposing party if the injunction is modified.

Rule 5 Injunction to corporation binding on its officer specifies that when a court issues an injunction against a corporation, the order is not only binding on the corporation itself but also on its officers and members, especially those whose actions are directly targeted by the injunction. This ensures that the injunction is fully enforceable, as it holds key individuals within the corporation accountable for complying with the order. The rule prevents the corporation from bypassing the injunction through the actions of its officers or members, ensuring the restraint is properly implemented and that those in control of the corporation are held responsible for adherence to the court’s decision.

Interlocutory Orders

Interlocutory Orders (Rules 6-10) within Order 39 provide the court with the power to pass certain interim orders that are not direct injunctions but are related to the preservation and management of the subject matter of the suit during its pendency. These include 

Rule 6, which empowers the court to order the interim sale of movable property that is subject to speedy and natural decay or for other sufficient reasons;

Rule 7, which allows for the detention, preservation, inspection, etc., of the subject matter of the suit; 

Rule 8, which specifies that applications for orders under Rules 6 and 7 are generally to be made after notice to the opposing party;

Rule 9, which deals with putting a party in immediate possession of land that is the subject matter of the suit under certain conditions;

Rule 10, which concerns the deposit of money or other deliverable things in court when a party admits to holding them in trust or belonging to another party. While these rules are important aspects of the court’s power to manage litigation effectively, they fall outside the primary focus of this article, which is on temporary and permanent injunctions

Specific Relief Act

Introduction

Part III of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, comprising Sections 36 through 44, specifically deals with the concept of preventive relief, which, under this Act, is primarily granted through the mechanism of injunctions. This part of the Act is further divided into two distinct chapters: Chapter VII, which is titled “Injunctions Generally” and encompasses Sections 36 and 37, and Chapter VIII, which is dedicated to “Perpetual Injunctions” and includes Sections 38 through 42.

Difference between CPC and Specific Relief Act

The Specific Relief Act, in contrast to the procedural focus of Order 39 of the CPC, provides the substantive legal foundation for the granting of injunctions. It defines the specific circumstances and conditions under which these forms of relief can be sought and granted, thereby establishing the legal principles that govern the court’s discretion in such matters. 

Section 36: Preventive relief how granted

It provides a foundational statement, asserting that preventive relief, which aims to prevent a party from performing an act they are obligated not to, is granted at the discretion of the court through the issuance of an injunction. This injunction can be either temporary, intended to last for a specified period or until further orders from the court, or perpetual, designed to permanently restrain the commission or continuation of a particular act. This section establishes the broad authority of the court to utilize injunctions as a tool for preventing potential breaches of obligation while also emphasizing that the exercise of this power is subject to the court’s judicial discretion.

Section 37: Temporary and perpetual injunctions

Defines two types of Injunction

1.  Temporary Injunctions, defining them as injunctions that are intended to remain in effect for a limited duration, either until a specified point in time is reached or until the court issues further orders modifying or vacating the injunction. Importantly, this subsection also clarifies that temporary injunctions can be granted by the court at any stage of a legal suit and that their granting and regulation are governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This explicit link between temporary injunctions under the Specific Relief Act and the procedural rules laid down in the CPC, particularly Order 39, highlights the intended interplay between these two statutes in providing interim relief. 
2.  Subsection (2) defines Perpetual Injunctions, stating that such an injunction can only be granted by the court through a formal decree that is issued at the final hearing of the suit, after a thorough examination of the merits of the case. Once a perpetual injunction is granted, the defendant is permanently restrained or enjoined from asserting a particular right or from committing a specific act that would be contrary to the established rights of the plaintiff. This distinction underscores that perpetual injunctions are a form of final relief, providing a permanent resolution to the dispute concerning the prohibited act or assertion of right, in contrast to the interim and provisional nature of temporary injunctions.

Section 38: Perpetual injunction when granted.

Perpetual Injunction when Granted lays out the substantive grounds for issuing such a permanent restraining order.

Subsection (1) states that, subject to the other provisions contained within or referred to by this chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation that exists in their favor, whether this obligation is expressly stated or implied by law. 

Subsection (2) further clarifies that when such an obligation arises from a contractual agreement, the court, in deciding whether to grant a perpetual injunction, must be guided by the rules and provisions that are outlined in Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, which deals with the specific performance of contracts. 

Subsection (3) then specifies particular scenarios where a perpetual injunction may be granted when the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property. 

These scenarios include cases where the defendant holds the property as a trustee for the plaintiff; where there is no established standard or method for accurately determining the actual damage that has been caused, or is likely to be caused, by the defendant’s invasion of the plaintiff’s property rights; where the nature of the invasion is such that monetary compensation would not provide an adequate or sufficient remedy to the plaintiff for the harm suffered or likely to be suffered; and where granting the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings, meaning to avoid a situation where the plaintiff would be forced to initiate a series of lawsuits to protect their rights against repeated infringements by the defendant. These conditions underscore that perpetual injunctions are typically granted in situations where the harm is significant, ongoing, or irreparable by monetary means or where it is necessary to provide a final and lasting resolution to a legal dispute concerning rights and obligations.

Section 39: Mandatory injunctions

Mandatory Injunctions address a different type of perpetual injunction. It states that in situations where, to prevent the breach of an existing obligation, it becomes necessary to compel a party to perform certain specific acts, and where the court is capable of enforcing the performance of these acts, the court may, in its discretion, grant an injunction. This injunction not only serves to prevent the breach that is being complained of but also actively compels the party to perform the requisite acts necessary to fulfill their obligation. These mandatory injunctions can be either restorative, aimed at bringing back a previous state of affairs, or enforcing, requiring the continuous performance of a positive act. The court’s ability to supervise and ensure the effective implementation of the required action is a key consideration when deciding whether to grant a mandatory injunction.

Section 40: Damages in lieu of, or in addition to, injunction

Damages in lieu of, or in addition to, Injunction provides an important provision regarding remedies in suits for perpetual or mandatory injunctions. It allows the plaintiff in such a suit to claim monetary damages either in addition to the injunctive relief they are seeking or as an alternative to it. However, the section also specifies that the court cannot grant any relief for damages unless the plaintiff has specifically included a claim for such damages in their initial written statement (the plaint) that is filed with the court. An exception to this rule is provided, stating that if the plaintiff has not initially claimed damages in the plaint, the court retains the power to allow the plaintiff to amend their plaint at any stage of the legal proceedings to include a claim for damages, provided that such amendment is allowed on terms that the court considers just and equitable.

Furthermore, Section 40 also establishes a bar on subsequent litigation. If a lawsuit that was initially filed by the plaintiff with the primary objective of preventing the breach of an obligation through an injunction is ultimately dismissed by the court, then the plaintiff is precluded from filing a separate and subsequent suit seeking damages for the very same breach of obligation. This provision aims to prevent repetitive litigation and to ensure a degree of finality to legal proceedings. 

Section 41: Injunction when refused

Outlines the circumstances under which a court cannot grant an injunction. These limitations aim to prevent the misuse of this equitable remedy. Key restrictions include:

1. Prosecution of Ongoing Proceedings: An injunction cannot restrain someone from continuing a judicial proceeding that was already underway unless necessary to avoid multiple legal actions.

2. Jurisdictional Limits: An injunction cannot stop someone from pursuing a case in a court not subordinate to the court granting the injunction.

3. Legislative Petitions: An injunction cannot prevent a person from petitioning a legislative body.

4. Criminal Proceedings: Injunctions cannot restrain criminal cases, as they fall under the domain of criminal justice.

5. Contract Breach: Injunctions cannot prevent breaches of contracts that aren’t specifically enforceable under the Specific Relief Act.

6. Nuisance: An injunction cannot be granted if it’s unclear whether an act will actually constitute a nuisance.

7. Acquiescence: If a plaintiff has allowed a breach to continue without objection for a significant time, they cannot later seek an injunction to stop it.

8. Alternative Remedies: If the plaintiff can seek effective relief through other legal methods, an injunction is usually denied, except in cases of trust breach.

9. Public Projects: Injunctions cannot delay or impede infrastructure projects or related services.

10. Plaintiff’s Conduct: A court may deny an injunction if the plaintiff or their agents have behaved in a way that disqualifies them from seeking help, following the principle that one must act equitably to receive equity.

11. Personal Interest: A plaintiff must have a direct and personal interest in the matter to seek an injunction.

These restrictions emphasize that injunctions should be used cautiously and only in appropriate circumstances.

Section 42:  Injunction to perform negative agreement

Injunction to perform a Negative Agreement provides an exception to one of the limitations outlined in Section 41. Specifically, notwithstanding the provision in clause (e) of Section 41 (which generally prohibits injunctions to prevent the breach of a contract that is not specifically enforceable), Section 42 states that where a contract comprises both an affirmative agreement to do a certain act and a negative agreement, either express or implied, not to do a certain act, the court is not barred from granting an injunction to enforce the negative agreement. This holds true even in circumstances where the court is unable to compel the specific performance of the affirmative agreement that forms part of the same contract. However, this power to grant an injunction to enforce a negative agreement is conditional upon the plaintiff having performed their own obligations under the contract, so far as they are binding on them. This section recognizes that in certain contractual arrangements, the negative covenants are crucial for protecting the interests of one of the parties, and the court should have the power to enforce these, even if the positive aspects of the contract cannot be specifically compelled.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, and Part 3 of the Specific Relief Act (SRA), 1963, are crucial in the field of injunctions in Indian law. Order 39 CPC outlines the procedural process for granting temporary injunctions during a lawsuit, focusing on maintaining the status quo and preventing irreparable harm. It sets out key conditions for granting such injunctions, including the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the risk of irreparable injury.

Part 3 of the SRA establishes the substantive legal framework for preventive relief through injunctions. It defines temporary and perpetual injunctions and connects temporary injunctions with the CPC. Sections 38 to 42 of the SRA specify when perpetual injunctions can be granted, such as in cases involving property rights or breaches of obligations, while Section 41 outlines circumstances for refusing injunctions.

Together, the CPC provides procedural guidelines for temporary injunctions, while the SRA defines the types and grounds for injunctive relief. Courts use both statutes to ensure just and equitable decisions when granting injunctions, which are vital in protecting rights and preventing harm. The combined framework of the CPC and the SRA underscores the importance of injunctions in upholding civil rights and maintaining justice in the Indian legal system.

1. AIR 1993 Supreme Court 276 ↩︎
2. AIR 1958 Supreme Court 79 ↩︎
3. AIRONLINE 2006 SC 159 ↩︎
4. AIR 1978 GAUHATI 56 ↩︎
5. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13999 of 2024 ↩︎
6. AIR 1994 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 25 ↩︎