Injunction & Stay

Mandatory & Prohibitory Injunction

To obtain an interim order during the pendency of the Suit/ Petition is a very vital aspect of the Litigation in the Court of Law. The very purpose of an interim order is only to protect rights of parties till there is final adjudication of rights of the parties in the suit. Where in any Suit, it is successfully demonstrated by the Plaintiff to the Court of law—

that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or
that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors,
that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,

-the court may by Order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other Order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.

We have numerous Judgments and Orders, passed by High Courts all over India and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, granting, as also rejecting the Applications for Injunctions and Stays. For convenience sake, we have divided the subject in hand in the following categories.

To know more, go on clicking on the following links

Civil Courts

[In Hierarchical Order]

Supreme Court Of India
High Courts Of Various States
District & Sessions Judges [D&SJ]
Family Courts
Senior Civil Judges
Civil Judges

Legislations Governing Injunction & Stay

The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

ORDER XXXIX : TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS AND INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

Order-XXXIX, Rule-1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.- Where in any Suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise—

(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or

(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors,

(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,the court may by Order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other Order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.

Order-XXXIX, Rule-2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.- (1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right.

(2) The court may by Order grant such injunction, on such terms, as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the court thinks fit.

Sub-rules (3) and (4) omitted by Act 104 of 1976, w.e.f. 1-2-1977.

Order-XXXIX, Rule-2A.Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.- (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other Order made under rule 1 or 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the Order made, the court granting the injunction or making the order, or any court to which the Suit or proceeding is transferred, may Order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also Order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the court directs his release.

(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than tone year at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.

Judgments & Citation: Injunction & Stay

Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools Versus Directorate Of Education, W.P.(C) 448/2016, Judgment Dated: 04.02.2016, Bench: Manmohan, J, Delhi High Court [Full PDF Judgment]- Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the order issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi whereby the ‘GNCTD’ directed the private unaided schools of Delhi to open the entire 75 per cent seats, i.e., “in 75% of the open seats, there would not be any quota.”.- Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the GNCTD Order till final disposal of the Suit.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Shri Hari Chand Sachdeva, AIR 2001 Delhi 307
Balakrishnan Nair v. Mohammed Kunju, MANU/KE/0127/1963
Baldev Raj v. Man Mohan, 92 (2001) DLT 274 (DB)
Info Edge (India) Ltd. Versus Rakesh Kalia, Cs(Comm) 36/2015, Judgment Dated-15.12.2015, Bench: Hima Kohli, J, Delhi High Court [Full PDF Judgment]- Case concerning a leading internet job portal, “NAUKRI.COM”- Restraining Orders sought by the naukri.com against infringement of the trademark, passing off, unfair competition, infringement of copyright etc.- Injunction granted.

Kerala in Varghese Vs. Fast Line Builders and Developers Kerala Pvt., MANU/KE/1232/2013
K.P.M. Aboobucker Vs. K. Kunhamoo, AIR 1958 Madras 287.
L.D. Meston School Society Vs. Kashi Nath Misra, AIR 1951 Allahabad 558
Punjab & Sind Bank and/or Ashoka Builders & Promoters, Basket Ball Federation of India Vs. N.S. Ziauddeen, Tamil Nadu Basketball Association, MANU/TN/0263/2013
Reckitt Benckiser Health Care (India) Pvt. Versus Emami Ltd & & Ors., F.M.A. 2041of 2015, Judgment Dated: 16.07.2015, Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya & Debi Prosad Dey, JJ, Calcutta High Court [Full PDF Judgment]
Shahbuddin Ismailbhai Ghaswala Vs. Keshavlal Lallubhai Tandel, MANU/GJ/0250/1985
Sahib Singh v. Arvinder Kaur[DB], FAO (OS) Nos. 444-445/2012(24/01/2013), 2013(2) AD(Delhi) 318: 2013(134) DRJ 445 [Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.: Vipin Sanghi, J.].
Tanusree Basu Vs. Ishani Prasad Basu, (2008) 4 SCC 791.
Unnamalai Achi v. Umayal Achi, MANU/TN/0569/1967.

Kindly CLICK HERE, call our helpline at (+91) 98-712-712-05, or e-mail us at info@hellocounsel.com if you wish to talk to a lawyer or are facing any other Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empaneled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.