2023:PHHC:077413

1

Manju

2023.05.26 18:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:077413

2

Manju

2023.05.26 18:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:077413

3

Manju

2023.05.26 18:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:077413

4

Manju

2023.05.26 18:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:077413

5

11.

“18. In the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kama

and Anr. [(1981) 4 SCC 8], a three Judge Bench of this Court had

opined that Section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 applied to a Letters Patent appeal as well.

In Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors.

[(1990) 2 SCC 117] grant of mandatory injunction at the interim

stage has been left to the sound judicial discretion of the

Court. Metro Marins and Anr. v. Bonus Watch Co. (P) Ltd. and

Ors. [(2004) 7 SCC 478] also follows the principles laid down in

the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden (supra). But these two

authorities dealt with the question of grant of interim injunction in

Manju

2023.05.26 18:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:077413

6

relation to disputes arising out of transfer of immovable property.

Applicability of Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 of the Code on the

question of granting interim injunction has been reconfirmed by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court in Best Seller Retail (India)

Private Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. and Ors. [(2012) 6 SCC

792]. In Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.

[(1999) 7 SCC 1], the principles guiding grant of interim

injunction have been summarized as:-

"24. We, however, think it fit to note herein below certain

specific considerations in the matter of grant of interlocutory

injunction, the basic being non-expression of opinion as to the

merits of the matter by the court, since the issue of grant of

injunction, usually, is at the earliest possible stage so far as the

time-frame is concerned. The other considerations which ought to

weigh with the court hearing the application or petition for the

grant of injunctions are as below:

(i) extent of damages being an adequate remedy;

(ii) protect the plaintiffs interest for violation of his rights though,

however, having regard to the injury that may be suffered by the

defendants by reason therefor;

(iii) the court while dealing with the matter ought not to ignore the

factum of strength of one party's case being stronger than the

other's;

(iv) no fixed rules or notions ought to be had in the matter of grant

of injunction but on the facts and circumstances of each case - the

relief being kept flexible;

Manju

2023.05.26 18:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:077413

7

(v) the issue is to be looked at from the point of view as to whether

on refusal of the injunction the plaintiff would suffer irreparable

loss and injury keeping in view the strength of the parties' case;

(vi) balance of convenience or inconvenience ought to be

considered as an important requirement even if there is a serious

question or prima facie case in support of the grant;

(vii) whether the grant or refusal of injunction will adversely affect the

interest of the general public which can or cannot be compensated

otherwise."

12.

Accordingly, relying upon the dicta

Manju

2023.05.26 18:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document