View Full Version : Principles governing grant of injunction

05-04-2012, 07:28 PM
Principles governing grant of injunction

(1) Temporary injunction: In order to grant a temporary injunction the court has to see- -
(a) that the plaintiff has a prime facie case;
(b) that there is likelihood irreparable damage to the plaintiff if injunction is refused; and
(c) that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff.
Where there is no chance at all of a perpetual injunction being granted in the suit a temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit would no be granted.
(2) Permanent injunction: Where there is disturbance or threatened disturbance of an easement a permanent of the suit would no be granted.
(a) if the right is seriously affected or likely to be so affected- -
(b) if compensation cannot be assessed for the damage caused or likely to be caused:
(c) if compensation would not afford adequate relief;
(d) if compensation would not be recoverable; and
(e) to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
An injunction as to easements which have been broken should be confined to a direction to the party breaking not to obstruct the exercise of the easement and should not descend into details, so as to prevent the servient owner from taking advantage of the privilege given to him under section 22. AIR 1918 Mad. 97.
Compensation and injunction: Section 33 lays down that pecuniary compensation could be awarded when substantial damage is caused. Section 35 lays down that, subject to the principles of equity embodied in section 52 to 57, both inclusive, of specific relief act, 1877an injunction can be granted, in all those cases in which pecuniary compensation would be recoverable under section 33 and also in cases of threatened injury. According to the provisions of the specific relief act injunction would be granted only where pecuniary compensation would not be an adequate relief. This is however merely a general rule, and the practices of courts have more or less crystallized, and is most cases of infringements are granted. Again a sharp practice might deprive the plaintiff of the remedy of injunction in accordance with the equitable principle that he who wants equity must do equity. Delay may also defeat equity. In case of a claim for a mandatory injunction, the hardship which it might cause to the defendant has sometimes weighed with the courts, particularly when the defendant was engaged in building some large house. It may be noted, however that where the defendantís acts constitute a trespass, the courts would have no hesitation in granting a mandatory injunction. In the Bombay case of Gobind Venkaji v. Sadashiv, ILR 17 Bom. 771, where the defendant who had only a right-of-way built a verandah thereon, the court granted a mandatory injunction.