The court emphasized the need for a careful balance of equities in injunction cases, asserting that blanket injunctions affecting substantial projects must be substantiated with clear justifications.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA SARKAR, J.

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated December 6, 2025, passed by the learned District Judge at Alipore, in Misc. Appeal No.404 of 2025. By the order impugned, the learned Appeal Court granted an ad interim injunction. The operative portion is quoted below:-

“Upon hearing the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate for the appellants and upon appraisal of the materials on record, it, prima facie, appears that the respondent nos. 42 and 43 were the Directors of the appellants/companies and the respondent no. 1 was the Director of the appellants/companies till 20th April, 201 and since then, the respondent no. 1 has ceased to be the Director of appellant no.1. Presently, it has been alleged by the appellants that the respondent no. 1 sent a copy of Memorandum of Understanding dated 15th January, 2025, allegedly entered into between the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 43. It has been further alleged that the Board Resolution dated 28h January, 2015, has not been signed by the respondent no. 43. It has also been alleged that vide the said Board Resolution, a Joint Development Agreement dated 25th June, 2021, has been entered into in between the respondents. The respondent no. 43 alleges that the signatures in MOU dated 15th January, 2015 and Board Resolution of D.C. Paul Group Construction Pvt. Ltd. dated 28h January, 2015, are forged and the respondent no. 43 has denied ever having signed on them and to that effect, the respondent no. 43, namely, Suparna Paul, sent a letter to D.C. Paul Group Construction Pvt. Ltd. (being Annexure 'G'). In that regard, the appellants also conducted a forensic test done by 'Forensi Labs' and report of the same has been appended with the injunction application (being Annexure 'K'). Therefore, regard being had to the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the appellants have been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour and the balance of convenience and inconvenience is also tilting in favour of the appellants. If, at this stage, an order of ad- interim injunction is not passed in favour of the appellants, then the appellants will suffer from irreparable loss and injury and the very purpose of filing the suit and the appeal would be rendered infructuous. As such, this Court is of the view that for a very restrictive period till hearing the respondents, a protective order needs to be given in favour of the appellants in order to protect the suit premises Hence, it is, ORDERED that the prayer for an order of ad-interim injunction in favour of the appellants is allowed for a restricted period till 07.01.2026.

The respondent nos. 1 and 2, their men, agents and assigns are restrained from taking any step on the basis of Joint Development Agreement dated 25th June, 2021, and the purported Development Power of Attorney, dated 16th July, 2021, till 07.01.2026.

2. The court was of the view that the opposite parties had made out a, prima facie, case for grant of injunction. The balance of convenience and inconvenience was in their favour. The learned Appeal Court recorded that one of the directors of the company had disputed her signature in the MOU dated January 15, 2015 and in the Board Resolutions dated January 28, 2015. The court further observed that the signature of the directors of the company were absent in the Joint Development Agreement.

3. The Court noted that a forensic test had been done at the instance of the plaintiffs, in order to ascertain whether the declaration m