Skip to main content

What is an injunction? what are the various kinds of it? When it can be granted?

 What is an injunction? what are the various kinds of it? When it can be

granted?

By Shagun Mahendroo


What is the definition of an injunction?

Different jurists have presented different meanings of injunction:

Injunction, according to Halsbury, is a type of court action in which an order is

issued and granted to a party for doing or not doing anything.

The Barmi Dictionary says: An injunction is a court order that prohibits a

person from interfering with another's right or threatening to interfere with

another's right.

The High Court of Rajasthan defined an injunction in State of Rajasthan vs

Randheer Singh (A.I.R. 1972, Rajasthan 241), saying that an injunction is a

specific order of the court given to: To stop such a wrongful act from happening

again, or to stop such a threat from happening again.

Thus, an injunction is a court order issued at any stage of the case to maintain

the status quo of the disputed property until the case is finally resolved or

subsequent orders are issued.

Injunctions come in a variety of types. There are four types of injunctions:

1)Temporary injunction: A temporary injunction is an order granted by the

court to keep the property in its current state until the matter is finally resolved.

The effect of such an injunction lasts until the lawsuit is finally resolved or until

subsequent orders are issued. The major goal is to ensure the property's security,

protection, and preservation (Mohammad Hafiz Khan Vs Najiban Bibi, 1973,

JLJ 114)

2)Perpetual injunction: It is issued by a decree at the conclusion of a suit and

has an indefinite effect.

3) Prohibitory injunction: It is a sort of injunction in which a third party is

prohibited from performing any act, i.e. an order is issued prohibiting the third

party from performing any act.

4) Mandatory Injunction: The fourth form of injunction is this one. It is a type

of injunction in which a party is ordered to perform a certain conduct in a

specific manner.


When can injunction be issued?

The circumstances under which an injunction can be issued are listed in Rule 1,

Oder 39 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. When it is proven in a lawsuit, by

affidavit or otherwise, that: the disputed property has the potential to be

destroyed, damaged, or transferred; or if the defendant threatens or intends to

remove or consume his property with the intent to defraud; or if the defendant

threatens or intends to remove or consume his property with the intent to

defraud; or the defendant threatens to dispose of or harm the plaintiff's property.

Under the circumstances outlined above, the court can impose a temporary

injunction that will remain in place until the case is resolved or further orders

are issued to prohibit the property from:

 being demolished

 being harmed

 from being bought and traded

 from being taken away

 from being modified

 from being evicted or transferred to another location, and so on.

Example: In a money-recovery case, if the court determines that the defendant

is threatening to remove or consume property in order to thwart the decree's

execution, the court can issue an injunction (M/S Cosmopolitan Trading

Corporation V/s M/s Engineering Sales Corporation, A.I.R. 2001, Rajasthan

331).

Injunctions can also be obtained to prohibit defamatory material from being

published in a newspaper (Hari Shankar V/s Kailash Narayan, A.I.R. 1982,

Madhya Pradesh 47).

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