Permanent Temporary Injunction Suit Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali

Last Updated on July 18, 2020 by Satish Mishra

Here in this post we talk about Permanent Temporary Injunction Civil Suit Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali in District Courts versus plaintiff & defendants which can be filed in any civil matter restraining the other party from doing any act against the interest of one who has filed the civil injunction case for seeking Permanent/Temporary reliefs from the court. It can be property matter, rent disputes, trademark and IPR infringement, stopping someone from constructing something or selling something which doesn’t invite criminal action. Thus, the ambit of civil dispute is very vast and it can be applied anywhere by simply filing suit for either permanent or temporary injunction.

Also Read- Jurisdictional immunity in India

Rule Of Injunction

Introduction

Every Court Is Constituted For Purpose Of Administering Justice Among Parties And Therefore Must Be Deemed To Posses All Such Powers As May Be Necessary To Do Full And Complete Justice To The Parties Before It.

Injunction Is A Judicial Process Whereby A Person Is Restraint For Commencing Or Continuing A Wrongful Act. Injunction Are Preventive Relief Whereby A Person Is Prevented From Invading Or Threatening To Invade The Legal Rights Of Another. Relief Of Injunction Is Not A Matter Of Right. It Is Discretionary, Equitable Relief. The Order Or Decree Of Injunction Is A Remedy In Personam Not Rem.

Injunction Word Define By HALSBURY’S LAWS :- “ Injunction Is A Judicial Process Whereby A Party Is Ordered To Refrain From Doing Or To Do A Particular Act Or Thing.”

As Per Oxford Dictionary:- “The Word Injunction Is A Judicial Warning Or A Judicial Order Restraing A Person From An Action Or Compelling A Person To Carry Out A Certain Act.”

Also Read- The Concept of Temporary And Perpetual Injunction

Jurisprudence Of Injunction

Law Of Injunction In Our Country Is Having Its Origin In The Equity Jurisprudence Inherited From England Who Borrowed It From Roman Law. It Is A Basic Principle Of Our Law That “UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM” I.E If There Is A Right There Is A Remedy.

How Stay Is Differ From Injunction

“Stay” Means Stoppage, Arrest, Suspension Of Judicial Proceeding, While “Injunction” Means Restraining Or Preventing A Person From Commencing Or Continuing Action. Order Of Stay Is Addressed To Court While Order Of Injunction Is Issued To Party. Injunction Become Effective As Soon As It Is Issued Whereas Stay Operates Only When It Is Communicated To The Court To Which It Is Issued.

Injunction Broadly Classified Into Two:-

• As To Time
  • Temporary/Interim Injunction
  • Permanent/Perpetual Injunction
• Positive And Negative Injunction
  • Mandatory Injunction
  • Prohibitory Injunction

Injunction As To Time:-

Also Read- How to file for permanent injunction

Temporary Injunction:- If On An Application A Party Is Prohibited From Doing Any Wrongful Act For A Specified Time Period Or During The Pendency Of The Suit Or Till The Further Orders Of The Court, Such Injunctions Are Called Temporary Injunction As Defined In Sec-37(1) Of SRA. The Provisions Regarding Temporary Injunctions Are Discussed In O- XXXIX Of CPC. As The Name Suggest These Injunctions Are Granted For The Time Being Or Are Operated During The Pendency Of A Suit Hence They Are Also Termed As Interim Injunction.

Test For Temporary Injunction

1. Whether The Plaintiff Has A Prima Facie Case?
2. Whether The Balance Of Convenience Is In Favour Of The Plaintiff?
3. Whether The Plaintiff Would Suffer An Irreparable Damage, If The Injunction Is Not Granted?

How Interim Injunction Differ From Ad- Interim Injunction

Ad- Interim Injunction Is Granted Without Finally Deciding The Application For Injunction And Operates Till The Disposal Of The Application. Whereas Interim Injunction Is Normally While Deciding The Main Application And Operates Till The Disposal Of The Suit.

Also Read- Selecting The Best Remedy For Trademark Enforcement In India

Suits Where Temporary Injunction Can Be Granted

By Referring To O-39(R-1,R-2) Temporary Injunction Can Be Claimed In Any Suit Whether The Suits Relates To Property Matter Or Not.

Ground Of Temporary Injunction

• Injunction Related To Property(O-39,R-1):- It Provide 3 Grounds On The Basis Which Injunction Can Be Claimed Regarding A Property.

1.If In Any Suit A Dispute Is Regarding A Property And The Property Is In The Danger Or Alienated By The Other Party Or Wrongfully Sold In The Execution.

2.If In Any Suit Where The Property Is In A Dispute And The Defendant Threatens Or Intent.

A.To Remove The Property From The Jurisdiction Of The Court. Or

B.To Dispose Of The Property.

3.If The Defendant Threatens To Disposses The

A.Paintiff

B.To Cause Injury.

• Relating To Breach Of Contract Or Any Other Injury (O-39,R-2):- It Provides The Case Where An Injury Can Be Sought From Restraining The Defendant From Committing A Breach Of Contract Or Any Other Injury.

Also Read- Delhi High Court stops a defendant in a trade mark passing off case by solely giving pre-eminence to public interest

Guiding Principle For Temporary Injunction In Landmark Judgment DALPAT KUMAR Vs. PRAHLAD SINGH , 1993 ,SC 276:-

Before Granting Of The Temporary Injunction, The Following Conditions Are Required To Be Satisfied:-

1. Prima Facie Case:- The Court Must Be Satisfied That The Applicant Has A Prima Facie Case To Go To Trial I.E. There Is A Probability Of The Plaintiff Getting Relief Asked For By Him. It Is Not Necessary That The Plaintiff Should Establish His Title To The Property In Suit. It Is Enough For Him To Show That He Has A Fair Question To Raise As To The Existence Of The Right Which He Alleges And Can Satisfy The Court That The Property In Dispute Should Be Preserved In Its Present Actual Condition Until Such Question Can Be Disposed Off. The Court Should Not Examine The Merits Of The Case Closely At That Stage, But It Is To Be Guided By Plaintiff’s Case As Revealed In The Plaints, Affidavits, Etc.
2. Irreparable Loss Or Injury:-Before The Granting Temporary, The Court Has Of Necessity To Satisfy Itself That The Failure To Grant The Temporary Injunction is Likely To Inflict Upon The Plaintiff The Loss Or Injury Which Cannot Be Compensated In Terms Of Money, And That There Is No Other Remedy Available Except The Injunction And He Needs Protection From Consequences Of Apprehended Injury Or Dispossession.

• Balance Of Convenience:- The Court Will First See That There Is A Bona Fide Contention Between The Parties And Then On Which Side, In The Event Of Success Of The Main Suit For Permanent Injunction, Will Lie The Balance Of Inconvenience If The Temporary Injunction Is Not Issued.

1. Plaintiff’s Conduct Must Be Fair And Honest:- Relief By Injunction Should Be Granted Or Withheld According To Real Equity Of The The Case In View Of All Facts And Circumstances. The Aspects Of Comparative Equities, Balance Of Convenience And Irreparable Injury Have To Be Satisfied.

Also Read- Bombay HC declares ‘ISKCON’ is a well-known trademark

NOTE:- [The Phrases “Prima Facie Case,” “Balance Of Convenience” And “ Irreparable Loss” Are Not Rhetoric Phrases For Incantation, But Words Of Width And Elasticity, To Meet Myriad Situations Presented By Man’s Ingenuity In Given Facts And Circumstances, But Always Is Hedged With Sound Exercise Of Judicial Discretion To Meet The Ends Of Justice.]

Latest Judgment On Temporary Injunction:- INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS(ISKON) V. ISKON APPAERAL (P)[ LTD. SC,2020]

Court Held That:- Defendants, Their Group Co. , Directors, Servants, Subordinates, Representatives, Agents And All Other Persons Claiming Under And/Or Through Them Be Restrained By A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION Of This Hon’ble Court From Using  The Mark ISKON Including Formerly Known As ISKON Or Any Other Mark Identical With And/Or Deceptively Similar Thereto Or Otherwise So As To Pass Off The Defendants’ Activities And/Or Goods/Services As And The Plaintiffs Activities And/Or Goods/Services, Or In Any Other Manner Whatsoever. Therefore, Court Held That Trade Mark ISKON Is Well-Known Trademark In India Within The Meaning Of Sec-2(1)(Zg) Of The Trade Marks Act,1999.

Also Read- Caution with Injunction in Trademark and IPR Cases

Permanent Injunction:- If A Suit Instituted By Way Of Application And Injunction Is Granted By The Court In The Form Of A Decree And By Going Into The Merits Of The Case Then In Such Case The Injunction Will Be Known As Perpetual Injunction. The Provisions Related To It Are Mentioned Under Sec- 38 To 42 Of SRA. As This Injunction Is Not Granted For Specified Time Period, It Is Known As Permanent Injunction.

Perpetual Injunction Are Defined U/S-37(2) Of SRA. Which Provides That It Is A Preventive Relief Under Which A Party Is Permanently Restricted From Asserting His Right Over A Property Or From Committing Or Continuing A Wrongful Act. A Perpetual Injunction Is Always Passed By A Decree Of The Court By Going Into The Merits Of The Case.

Also Read- HC: No injunction in public interest cases

The Supreme Court In Case Of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR V. P.BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS On 25 March 2008 Held In Para 17 Of Judgment As Under:

1. Where A Cloud Is Raised Over Plaintiff’s Title And He Does Not Have Possession, A Suit For Declaration And Possession, With Or Without A Consequential Injunction, Is The Remedy. Where The Plaintiff’s Title Is Not In Dispute Or Under A Cloud, But He Is Out Of Possession, He Has To Sue For Possession With A Consequential Injunction. Where There Is Merely An Interference With Plaintiff’s Lawful Possession Or Threat Of Dispossession, It Is Sufficient To Sue For An Injunction Simpliciter.
2. As A Suit For Injunction Simpliciter Is Concerned Only With Possession, Normally The Issue Of Title With Not Be Directly And Substantially In Issue. The Prayer For Injunction Will Be Decided With Reference To The Finding On Possession. But In Cases Where De Jure Possession Has To Be Established On The Basis Of Title To The Property, As In The Case Of Vacant Sites, The Issue Of Title May Be Directly And Substantially Arise For Consideration, As Without A Finding Thereon, It Will Not Be Possible And Substantially Arise For Consideration, As Without A Finding Thereon, It Will Not Be Possible To Decide The Issue Of Possession.
3. But A Finding On Title Cannot Be Recorded In A Suit For Injunction, Unless There Are Necessary Pleading And Appropriate Issue Regarding Title. Where The Averment Regarding Title Are Absent In A Plaint And Where There Is No Issue Relating To Title, The Court Will Not Investigate Or Examine Or Render A Finding On A Question Of Title, In A Suit For Injunction. Even Where There Are Necessary Pleadings And Issue, If The Matter Involves Complicated Questions Of Facts And Relating To Title, The Court Will Relegate The Parties To The Remedy By Way Of Comprehensive Suit For Declaration Of Title, Instead Of Deciding The Issue In A Suit For Mere Injunction.
4. Where There Are Necessary Pleadings Regarding Title, And Appropriate Issue Relating To Title On Which Parties Lead Evidence, If The Matter Involved Is Simple And Straightforward, The Court May Decide Upon The Issue Regarding Title, Even In A Suit For Injunction. But Such Cases, Are The Exception To The Normal Rule That Question Of Title Will Not Be Decided In Suits For Injunction.

Also Read- PROCEDURE FOR TAKING FREE LEGAL SERVICES

Section-38 Of SRA Provides For Guiding Principle Pertaining To Perpetual Injunctions Which Are As Follows:-

• Breach Of An Obligation;- Section-38(1) Provides That Perpetual Injunction Can Be Granted To The Plaintiff For A Breach Of An Obligation Arising In His Favour . Whether It Express Or Implied Obligations. Whether It Statutory Obligation Or Contractual Obligation.
• In The Cases Of Contractual Obligations:- Where An Obligation Arises From A Contract Between The Parties And There Is A Breach Of Such Obligations Nat The Instance Of One Party And The Other Party May Apply For A Perpetual Injunction Whereby The Other Party Will Be Permanently Restrain From Committing Future Breaches. It Must Be Noted That While Granting Such Injunction The Court Must Considered Where Such Contract Can Be Specifically Enforced Or Not. A Combine Reading Of Sec-38 And Sec-41(E) Says If A Contact Cannot Be Specifically Enforced The Court Shall Refuse To Grant Perpetual Injunction.
• In The Cases Of A Contract Consisting Of A Positive And Negative Agreement Both:- Section-42 Of SRA Provides That If A Contract Consists A Positive As Well As Negative Agreement And Both These Can Be Severed From Each Other Then Even If Positive Agreement Cannot Be Specifically Enforced I.E (Refusal Of Injunction), Negative Injunction Can Be Granted By The Court In Order To Enforce Negative Agreement.

Where A Permanent Injunction Can Be Granted:-

1. By Sec-38 Of SRA Perpetual Injunction May Be Granted To Prevent The Breach Of Obligation Existing In Favour Of The Applicant, Whether Expressly Or By Implication.
2. Where The Defendant Is A Trustee Of The Property For The Plaintiff.

• Where There Is No Standard For Ascertaining The Actual Damage Caused, Or Likely To Be Caused, To The Plaintiff, By Invasion Of His Rights.

1. Where The Invasion Of The Plaintiff’s Right Is Such That Compensation In Money Would Not Afford Adequate Relief.
2. Where Injunction Is Necessary To Prevent Multiplicity Of Judicial Proceedings.

Also Read- LEGAL AID SERVICE PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

Where A Permanent Injunction Cannot Be Granted (Sec-41):-

1. To Restraint A Person From Prosecuting A Pending Judicial Proceeding, Unless It Is To Prevent Multiplicity Of The Proceeding.
2. To Restraint A Person From Instituting Or Prosecuting A Judicial Proceeding In A Court, Where The Injunction Is Sought From A Court Subordinate To That Court.
3. To Restraint Any Person From Applying To Any Legislative Body.
4. To Restraint Any Person From Instituting Or Prosecuting Any Proceeding In A Criminal Matter.
5. To Prevent The Breach Of A Contract The Performance Of Which Would Not Be Specifically Enforced.
6. Where It Is Not Reasonably Clear That An Act It Nuisance, To Prevent Such An Act On The Ground Of Nuisance.
7. To Prevent A Continuing Breach In Which The Plaintiff Has Acquiesced, As The General Rule Is That An Acquiescence Is An Implied Consent By Remaining Silent.
8. Where Except In The Case Of Breach Of Trust, Equally Efficacious Relief Can Certainly Be Obtained By Any Other Usual Mode Of Proceeding.
9. When The Conduct Of The Plaintiff Or His Agents Has Been Such As To Dis-Entitle Him To The Assistance Of The Court.
10. When The Plaintiff Has No Personal Interest In The Matter.

NOTE:- Both The Temporary And Perpetual Injunction, Though Initiated By An Application, Can Be Termed As Civil Proceeding Which Are Suits, As Both Of Them Are Governed By The Provisions Of Cpc.

Positive And Negative Injunction

Mandatory Injunction:- If The Court Finds It Necessary And Within Its Capability, To Compel The Performance Of An Act, To Prevent The Breach Of An Obligation, It May Do So Granting A Mandatory Injunction To The Plaintiff, Compelling The Defendant To Perform The Requisite Acts. A Mandatory Injunction Can Be Temporary Or Permanent.

Mandatory Injunction Given U/S-39 Of SRA Also Known As Positive Injunction In Which The Court Can:-

1. Compel The Performance Of Certain Work Or Act
2. Arising From An Obligation , Statutory Or Contractual

• In Order To Prevent The Breach Of Such Obligations

1. Where There Is A Contractual Obligations The Court Should Also Have A Power To Grant Specific Performance As To It.

Also Read- INJUNCTION CIVIL SUIT CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI

NOTE;- As To The Breach Of Contractual Obligations A Parties Has Two Remedies Under SRA I.E Either Mandatory Injunction Or Specific Performance Of A Contract.

Prohibitory Injunction:- The Court Can Grant An Injunction To Not Do Certain Acts, Which Are Prohibited By The Contract To Do. The Court May Do So Even If It Is Unable To Compel The Performance Of The Affirmative Terms Of Contract, I.E. The Terms That Requires The Defendant To Do Certain Acts. However, It Is Subject To The Fact, Whether The Plaintiff Has Performed The Terms Of The Contract Binding On Him Or Not. Non Performance By The Plaintiff Dis-Entitles Him From Obtaining Such An Injunction.

Conclusion

An Injunction Is An Equitable Remedy And As Such Attracts The Application Of The Maxim That He Who Seeks The Equity Must Do Equity. Granting Of Injunction Is Entirely In The Discretion Of The Court, Though The Discretion Is To Be Sound And Reasonably Guided By Judicial Principles.

Also Read- REGULAR SECOND APPEAL INJUNCTION CASES HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

For case specific advice, please contact Injunction Lawyers Advocate (Civil) in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Mullanpur Baltana etc.

This post is written by Ramandeep Kaur.

More on 99888-17966.