• Injunction & Stay- When Disentitled To Relief

  • When the Plaintiff is disentitled to get Injunction/ Stay

    • The Plaintiff who takes a false plea in the Court.
    • Interim injunction not to be granted if granting of interim injunction would tantamount to granting the final relief itself- Noted Cases- MS Sancorp Confectionary Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s Gumlink A/S, 197 (2013) DLT 781: 2013(1) R.A.J. 595
    • Seriously disputed questions of facts
    • Perpetual injunction with respect to property- Non-impleadment of subsequent purchasers, Allowability of- Claim for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in suit properties on the basis of agreements-cum-bayana rasid - Held, plaintiffs in the plaint itself admit suit properties have since changed hands; the subsequent purchasers have not been impleaded; the claim for injunction against the defendants with respect to such properties is therefore utterly misconceived- Abhey Dewan v. Manoj Sethi, CS (OS) 491/2010, I.A. Nos. 3459/2010, 3460/2010 and 3461/2010 and I.A. No. 8014/2012(04/07/2013), 2013(202) DLT 392 [Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.]
    • Lack of prima facie case- The Plaintiff Approaching the court with false case- Held, once the plaintiff is not found to have a prima facie case and is rather found to have approached the Court with a false case, the question of grant of interim relief does not arise- Sanjeev Narang Vs. Prism Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 154 (2008) DLT 508 (DB); Smt. Champa Arora Vs. Sh. Shiv Lal Arora; S.No.903/1990, decision on 27.08.2001, Jyotsnamoyee Debi Vs. Narayan Chandra Pal, 1988 (1) CCS 5; Prakash Khattar Vs. Shanta Jindal, DLT 181 (2011) 138 & Seema Arshad Zaheer Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, (2006) 5 SCC 282, Referred.
    • Interim relief cannot be sustained on mere equity, without the other ingredients of prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience being satisfied- Company Law Board v. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., Co. Pet. No. 45/1971(17/05/2013), 2013(5) AD(Delhi) 113 [S. Muralidhar, J.]; Sugen Inc. v. A. Rao, IA No. 11625/2012 (of the Plaintiffs u/O 39 R-1&2 CPC) & IA No. 17014/2012 & IA. No. 18679/2012 (both/the Defendants u/O 39 R-4 CPC) in CS (OS) No. 1866/2012 and Counter Claim 25/2013(19/03/2013), 2013(6) R.A.J. 105: 2013(54) PTC 560 [Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.]

    The captioned subject is complex by its very nature. We, therefore, always encourage our visitors & Clients to seek an independent legal advice by our empanelled lawyers. In such Cases, our lawyers devise most appropriate legal recourse for our Clients after examining the related provisions of law, i.e The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, The Limitation Act, 1963, The Evidence Act, 1872, Other relevant Acts & Judgments and Citations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India and the High Courts. Even otherwise, the question as to how to apply the laws, judgments and citations is rather more complex, as it involves a thorough examination of substantial laws, procedural laws and Court precedents in a given set of facts and circumstances.  

    Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Matrimonial Issue- Civil or Criminal, and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.  

All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove