Skip to main content

Concept of Injunction under Specific Relief Act, 1963

 Concept of Injunction under Specific Relief Act, 1963


By Shweta Nair


An injunction is an order of the court directing a party, precisely to do something or precisely

not to do something.

An injunction is an order of the competent court which-

 Prohibits the commission of a threatened wrong or

 Prohibits the continuation of a wrong already begun, or

 Orders the restoration of Status Quo (the former course of things)


Injunctions can be temporary or perpetual (permanent).


 Temporary Injunction or Interim Injunctions are temporary in nature. They persist in

force until a definite time or until further orders of the court whereas Perpetual or

Permanent Injunctions are confined in the decree passed by the court and is granted when

a right is instituted. The defendant is perpetually restrained from determining a right or

committing an act.

 A temporary injunction is passed by an order during pendency of suit whereas a perpetual

injunction can be bestowed only by the decree made upon finally hearing the pros of the

case.

 A temporary injunction can be provided at any phase of the suit, even ex-parte i.e.,

deprived of notice to the other party whereas perpetual injunctions are usually given only

after hearing both the sides on the pros of the matter.

 The object and effect of a temporary injunction is to conserve the status quo until the final

discarding of the case whereas the consequence of a perpetual injunction is to give effect

or to guard the plaintiff’s right. The defendant is perpetually restrained from doing an act

which would be opposing to the rights.

 Temporary Injunctions are ruled by order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code whereas

Perpetual Injunctions are ruled by sections 38 to 42 of the Specific Relief Act.


Perpetual Injunctions


A perpetual injunction may be bestowed to the plaintiff to avoid the breach of an

obligation prevailing in his favour.

When such an obligation arises from a contract, the court shall be directed by the rules

relating to specific performance of the contract.

When defendant conquers or intimidate to conquer the right of plaintiff to or enjoyment

of property, the court can confer perpetual injunction in the below mentioned cases-

1. Where the defendant is a trustee of the property for the plaintiff.

2. Where there is no standard for determining the actual damages caused or

probable to be caused;

3. Where reimbursement in money would not offer satisfactory relief.

4. Where it is essential to avert multiplicity of proceedings.


Section 41 states that,


Perpetual Injunctions cannot be bestowed in the below cases-


 To restrain from prosecuting a judicial proceeding.

 To restrain from starting proceeding in a superior court.

 To restrain from applying to a legislative body.

 To restrain from prosecuting in a criminal matter.

 To prevent the breach of a contract which cannot be specifically

imposed.

 To avert nuisance, which is unclear that it is a nuisance.

 To prevent an ongoing infringement or breach in which the

plaintiff has consented.

 Where equally efficient relief can be attained in a usual way.

 Where the demeanour of the plaintiff himself has been dubious.

 Where the plaintiff has no private interest in the matter.


Mandatory Injunctions- Section 38:


Occasionally in order to avoid the infringement of an obligation, it is vital to compel a

party to compulsorily do certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing. In such

cases, the court may, in its decision bestow an injunction-

 To avoid such breach and also

 To induce the performance of the necessary acts.


In such a suit, the plaintiff may also request for damages in addition to or as a

substitute to the injunction.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree