A party is entitled to a temporary injunction if they can show that they have a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience and inconvenience favors them, and that they will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has arisen out of the order dated 3-986 passed by Sri S. B. Muhuri, learned Assistant District Judge, Burdwan, in Title Suit No. 175 of 1985, whereby the learned Judge rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the aforesaid Title Suit against the Steel Authority of India Limited (Defendant No. 1) and other defendants, who were the Officers of the Defendant No. 1 company for a declaration that the stoppage of work in Durgapur Branch stock Yard between the period from June 14, 1984 to July 15, 1984, was due to wrongful, illegal and unwarranted action on the part of the defendants and that the plaintiff was not liable to the defendants for any alleged loss of the defendants arising out of or connected therewith; for accounts in respect of the claim of Rs. 4,63,660/- (four lakhs sixty three thousand six hundred and sixty) demanded by the defendant No. 2 on Jan. 30, 1985, or for any other claim arising out of the stoppage of work during June 14, 1984 to July 15, 1984 and upon such accounting, for refund of the amount which would be found due and payable out of such deduction made upto the date; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from deducting any amount from the plaintiff's running bills for alleged detention, demurrage, diversion or other charges on account of stoppage of the work as mentioned above and again for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from appropriating the sum of Rs. 4,76,000/- or any part thereof so far deducted from the plaintiff's running bills towards satisfaction of their purported claim on account of the alleged detention, demurrage etc. or for any other claim arising out of the stoppage of the aforesaid work as threatened in the defendants' letter dated Jan. 30, 1985. The plaintiff in the aforesaid suit filed a petition for temporary injunction praying for temporarily restraining the defendants from appropriating the said sum of Rs. 4,76,000/- already deducted from the plaintiffs running bills and from deducting any further sum from the plaintiffs running bills on account of demurrage, detention, diversion or other charges arising out of the stoppage of the work during the period, as aforesaid till the disposal of the suit.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFFS case, in brief, was that the plaintiff was a handling contractor engaged in the job of handling Iron and Steel materials at the Durgapur Stock Yard of the defendant No. 1 Company. The defendants Nos. 2 to 6 were the Officers of the defendant No. 1 company. The plaintiff once submitted a tender to the defendant No. 1-company but that tender was rejected and fresh tenders were called by the defendant No. 1-company. The plaintiff moved the High Court at Calcutta under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and through the intervention of the High Court, the defendants were compelled to allow the plaintiff to submit a fresh tender and the said tender being again the lowest, the plaintiff was given the job for a period of two years from May 14, 1984. The job involved the loading and unloading of wagons which arrived at the Durgapur Branch Office Stock Yard of the defendant No. 1-company within the free time allowed. According to the contract the plaintiff as contractor was responsible for demurrage, wharfage and/or any other incidental charges concurred due to the failure of the contractor to make over the wagons to the Plant Authorities within the free time. The demurrage on account of the detention beyond the free time as stipulated in clause 15 (b) of the contract between the parties would be payable by the contractor. The demurrage thus payable would be calculated periodically by the Company and the Contractor would pay to the Company such demurrage immediately on demand. If the contractor would not pay such demurrage within fifteen days from the date of such intimation, the Company would recover such dues on account of demurrage from the pending bills of