1) Meaning and Statutory Basis #
Injunction is a form of preventive relief granted at the discretion of the court. It may be temporary or perpetual.
- Section 36, Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA): preventive relief is granted by injunction (temporary/perpetual).
- Section 37 SRA:
- Temporary injunction continues till a specified time / further orders and is regulated by CPC.
- Perpetual injunction is granted by decree on merits.
2) When Injunction is Granted #
A) Temporary (Interim) Injunction — When courts grant it #
Although governed by Order 39 CPC, courts apply standard tests:
Tests (triple test):
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable injury
Landmark case: Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (SC, 1991/92)
- Facts: Parties were in dispute; interim injunction was sought during pendency of suit.
- Issue: What are the essentials for grant of temporary injunction?
- Held/Principle: Temporary injunction is discretionary; court must be satisfied about prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury before granting.
Landmark case: Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (SC, 1990)
- Facts: Interim injunction order was challenged in appeal.
- Issue: When should an appellate court interfere with trial court’s discretion on interim injunction?
- Held/Principle: Appellate interference is limited; it should not reassess discretion like a fresh court unless the discretion is shown to be arbitrary/perverse.
B) Perpetual Injunction — When granted (Section 38 SRA) #
A perpetual injunction may be granted to prevent breach of an obligation in plaintiff’s favour.
Where defendant invades/threatens plaintiff’s property right, the court may grant it, especially when:
- no fixed standard to measure damage, or
- money compensation is not adequate, or
- to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
C) Mandatory Injunction — When granted (Section 39 SRA) #
If to prevent breach of an obligation it is necessary to compel performance of certain acts, court may grant mandatory injunction.
Landmark case: Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (SC, 1990) (interim mandatory injunction principles)
- Facts: A stranger purchaser claimed possession/enjoyment of part of a dwelling house bought as an undivided share; plaintiff sought interim mandatory injunction to undo/restore position.
- Issue: When can a court grant an interlocutory mandatory injunction?
- Held/Principle: Such relief is granted in special circumstances to preserve/restore status quo; plaintiff must show a strong case (higher than ordinary prima facie), irreparable/serious injury, and balance of convenience in his favour.
D) Injunction to enforce a “Negative Covenant” in contracts — Section 42 SRA #
Even if the court cannot specifically enforce the affirmative part of a contract, it may still grant injunction to enforce the negative agreement (e.g., “shall not do X”), provided plaintiff has performed his part.
Landmark case: Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. (SC, 1995)
- Facts: Bottling agreement contained a negative covenant restraining bottler from dealing with competing products during subsistence; interim injunction was sought to enforce it.
- Issue: Can interim injunction enforce a negative covenant, and what tests apply?
- Held/Principle: Section 42 permits injunction to enforce negative stipulation; grant of interlocutory injunction still requires prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and the court must weigh hardships.
3) When Injunction is Refused (Section 41 SRA — Statutory Bars) #
Section 41 SRA lists situations where injunction cannot be granted, including:
- (b) to restrain a proceeding in a court not subordinate to the court granting injunction
- (e) to prevent breach of a contract not specifically enforceable
- (h) when equally efficacious relief is available by usual mode (except breach of trust)
- plus (f), (g), (i), (j) like unclear nuisance, acquiescence, plaintiff’s conduct, lack of personal interest.
Key landmark cases on refusal #
A) Section 41(b): Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank (SC, 1983)
- Facts: Injunction was sought that would effectively restrain proceedings in another court.
- Issue: Can a court grant injunction restraining proceedings in a court not subordinate to it?
- Held/Principle: No — Section 41(b) bars such injunction.
B) Section 41(e): “Not specifically enforceable contract” (Personal service)
- Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain (SC, 1976)
- Facts: Employment dispute; relief sought would amount to enforcing a contract of personal service.
- Issue: Can court enforce personal service through injunction/specific performance?
- Held/Principle: Generally no specific performance of contract of personal service (subject to limited exceptions); hence injunction to continue service is ordinarily refused.
- Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi (SC, 2004)
- Facts: Employee sought injunction-type relief regarding employment termination/continuance.
- Issue: Whether such relief is barred because it indirectly enforces a personal service contract.
- Held/Principle: Courts should not grant relief that effectively forces continuation of personal service; remedy is generally damages, not injunction.
C) Section 41(h): Equally efficacious remedy available
Sanjay Paliwal v. BHEL (SC, decision dated 15 Jan 2026)
- Facts: Plaintiffs sought mandatory injunction to remove a wall; High Court held suit for bare injunction barred because suit for possession was the efficacious remedy in those facts.
- Issue: When does Section 41(h) bar injunction?
- Held/Principle: Section 41(h) bars injunction when an equally efficacious remedy is available; court explained that “equally efficacious” means a remedy placing plaintiff in the same position as injunction would.
4) Conclusion #
Injunction is an equitable, discretionary relief: courts grant it to prevent breach of obligation/rights (Sections 38–39, 42) but must refuse it where Section 41 bars it, or where interim tests (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury) are not satisfied.
