Back
1997(6) Supreme 165
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
The Agriculture Produce Market Committee Gondal & Ors.- Appellants
versus
Shri Girdharbhai Ramjibhai Chhaniyara & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3618 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2551 of 1997)
Decided on 5-5-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : H.N. Salve, Sr. Advocate Jayant Patel, Rakesh K. Khanna, U. Tameem Hashmi, Surya Kant, Advocates.
For the Respondents : R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate and H.A. Raichura, Advocate.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
A person must have a concluded right to seek enforcement against a defendant to be entitled to ad interim or temporary injunctions. If such a right is not established, injunctions cannot be granted (!) (!) .
The case involved an injunction related to the allotment of shops in a new market yard by a statutory Market Committee under the relevant agricultural produce markets law (!) .
The respondents filed a suit for a perpetual injunction to restrain the Market Committee from making shop allotments, along with an application for ad interim relief. The trial court granted the interim injunction, which was confirmed by the High Court (!) .
The primary issue was whether the respondents had any enforceable right to be protected by injunction at that stage. It was held that they did not possess a concluded right at the time of the application, and thus, the court should not have granted the injunction (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the respondents’ rights were still in development ("in embryo") and that the law requires a clear, established right before granting such relief. Since no such right existed, the injunction was unwarranted (!) .
The High Court erred by assuming a right existed without proper analysis, and it extended relief beyond what was claimed or justified, including enlarging the scope of the relief without proper basis (!) .
The applicable legal provisions specify that temporary injunctions are granted to preserve the status quo until final judgment, and perpetual injunctions are only granted after a full hearing on the merits. The respondents’ rights did not meet these criteria at this stage (!) (!) .
The appellate court found that the orders of the lower courts were based on a manifest error of law and exceeded the permissible scope of interim relief. The appeal was allowed, the lower orders set aside, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit promptly (!) .
Would you like a more detailed explanation of any specific point?
ORDER
Leave granted.
Application for intervention is allowed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides.
3. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, made on January 15, 1997 in Civil Application No. 9563/96.
4. A few admitted facts are sufficient for the disposal of this case. The Market Committee was constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (for short, the Act). Under the Act, the Market Committee is under the statutory obligation to declare the notified market area for the purpose of regulating the purchase and sale of notified agricultural produce within the notified market and to establish it. As a facet thereof, advertisement has been published inviting offers from the interested persons for allotment of shops in new market yard vide notification dated November 23, 1991. The existing shop holders were informed that if they were interested to surrender the shops in the existing market area, they would be granted shop in the new market yard. In lieu thereof, they are required to pay the value of the shop equal to 7 years capitalised rent. They are designated as "shop for shop category". For others it is designated as A type shops and B type shops. For A type shops they have tentatively fixed the price at Rs. 2.55 lakhs and for B type shops Rs. 2.33 lakhs have been fixed. After the advertisement so made, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for perpetual injunction in a representative capacity under Order I, Rule 8, CPC restraining the Market Committee from making allotment of the shops and ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 2, CPC was sought for and was granted by the trial Court. On appeal, it was confirmed by the High Court with a further rider with which we deal at a later stage. Thus this appeal by special leave.
5. The primary question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents have any right to be enforced by way of injunction? Part III of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals in that behalf by way of preventive relief. Section 36 postulates that "(P)reventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual." Temporary or perpetual injunctions are regulated by Section 37, which reads as under :
"37. Temporary and perpetual injunctions.-(1) Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specified time, or until the further order of the Court, and they may be granted at any stage of a suit, and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
(2) A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit; the defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the right of the plaintiff."
6. It is seen that the respondents do not have at present any concluded right to seek for enforcement against the Market Committee. At best, they have got a right to apply for and seek allotment in respect of those who are governed by the second category, namely, A type and B type shops. We are not concerned in this case with the first category, viz., shop for shop because they are not seeking any relief by way of perpetual or temporary injunction in this behalf. Since the respondents are not having any concluded right as at present, the court has not applied its mind to consider what would be the right which is claimed to be infringed. The High Court has further proceeded on the premise that they have a right, without applying its mind; it has stated that the right is sought to be regulated by injunction, without looking into the above provisions of the Act. The trial Court had stated as under :
"1. Temporary injunction against he defendant No. 1 their servants, agents etc. is hereby granted restraining them in making allotment of any shop on premium of Rs. 2,55,000/- and Rs. 2,30,000/- respectively for
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
