Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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.
Damages In Lieu of, or in Addition to Injunction
If the plaintiff claims for any additional damages along with the injunction sought for, either perpetual or mandatory,
or in substitution of the said injunction, the court may award him such damages, if it thinks fit. If no damages have
been claimed, the court may allow the plaintiff to make the required amendments to the plaint and claim damages.
However, it is highly recommended to claim damages in the plaint before submitting it, as permission for further
amendments rests solely at the discretion of the court.
The dismissal of a suit to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff bars his right to sue for
damages for such breach.
Injunction to Perform Negative Agreement
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 the contract, i.e. the terms that requires
the defendant to do (perform) 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.
Case Laws Regarding Permanent Injunction
In the case of Jujhar Singh vs. Giani Talok Singh where a permanent injunction was sought for by a son to prevent his
father who happened to be the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), from selling the HUF property was set
aside. It was not maintainable because the son, also a coparcener, had got the remedy of challenging the sale and
getting it set aside in a suit subsequent to the completion of the sale.
On the other hand, granting the injunction sought would allow the son to use the injunction to prevent the father from
selling the property even if he is compelled to do so, due to legal necessities.
Where in the case of Cotton Corporation Of India vs. United Industrial Bank, an injunction was sought for to restrain
the defendants from presenting a winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 or under the Banking Regulation
Act, 1949, the court dismissed the petition as it was not competent to grant, as a relief, a temporary injunction
restraining a person from instituting a proceeding in a court not subordinate to it.
The court here was of the view that if a perpetual injunction cannot be granted for the subject matter of the case
under Section 41(b) of the act, ipso facto temporary injunction cannot be granted.
Grounds for Rejection of an Application for Injunction
On the following grounds, an injunction cannot be granted:
1. To restraint a person from prosecuting a pending judicial proceeds, 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 restrain any person from applying to any legislative body.
4. To restrain 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 (Illustration: a
contract between a master and servant, requiring the servant to render personal services to the master cannot
be specifically enforced by the master or the servant. Hence, an injunction cannot be granted in this situation)
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 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 disentitle him to the assistance of the court.
10. When the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter