SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Aditya Dave - Appellant
Versus
MS Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
FAO 40 of 2022 & CM. Appls. 8846-47 of 2022
Decided On : 18-02-2022




Parties must be afforded a fair opportunity to respond in injunction proceedings; failure to consider the requisite principles warrants intervention by appellate courts.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 - Appeal against order disposing of an application for ad-interim injunction - The trial court failed to provide an opportunity for filing a reply and did not consider the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss (Paras 3, 7).

(B) Procedural Fairness - Parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to present their case; failure to do so warrants intervention (Paras 3, 8).

(C) Injunction Orders - Interim injunction remains in force pending revisiting of application by trial court (Paras 11, 12).

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of an application for injunction without a hearing, asserting procedural unfairness. The trial court did not examine key principles for granting injunction (Paras 3, 6).

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the lower court's order is to be modified to keep the application pending, allowing for a hearing and a fresh decision by the trial court (Paras 8, 9).

Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court provided an adequate opportunity to the appellant to respond and whether the requisite principles for granting an injunction were considered.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held it essential that all parties are afforded the opportunity to present their arguments and that the principles governing injunction applications must be addressed (Paras 7, 10).

Result: Appeal allowed; application treated as pending and hearing ordered.

Table of Content
1. conclusion and procedural directives. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 13)
2. the appeal challenges an order disposing of an application. (Para 2)
3. contention regarding lack of opportunity for response. (Para 3 , 6)
4. lack of judicial findings on key injunction principles. (Para 7)
5. modification of order to keep application pending. (Para 8 , 9 , 11)
6. limitation and merits shall be considered afresh. (Para 10 , 12)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2. Appellant impugns order dated 08.02.2022, whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 has been disposed of.

3. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the application was disposed of without giving any opportunity to file a reply. He further submits that the trial court has not even considered the three basic principles for grant of ad-interim injunction i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury, and has disposed of the application finally.

4. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 as also by learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. With the consent of parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal today.

6. Contention of learned counsel for appellants is that the notice of the said application was received on 07.02.2022 for a hearing on 08.02.2022, when the counsel had prayed for an adjournment to file a reply. However, no opportunity to file a reply was granted. It is further contends that there are disputes with regard to the limitation as well as the maintainability of the suit and the same have not been considered by the trial court while disposing of the application.

7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that that no opportunity to file a reply was granted to the appellant. Further, the court has not returned any finding on the question of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss and injury likely to be caused to the plaintiff.

8. In that view of the above, the impugned order dated 08.02.2022 requires a modification to the extent the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 shall not be treated as disposed of but shall be treated as pending on the file of the trial court.

9. Appellant shall file a reply to the application within one week. Rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. Thereafter, the trial court shall consider the application afresh and pass a fresh speaking order.

10. The questions of limitation as well as maintainability are left open. However, the objections shall be considered by the trial court for forming a prima facie opinion on the merits.

11. The interim injunction granted by the Trial Court on 08.02.2022 shall continue till a final order is passed by the Trial Court on the said application.

12. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall amount to expression of opinion on the merits of the contentions of either party and the trial court shall dispose of the application without being influenced by anything stated herein on merits.

13. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through e-mail by the Court Master.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top