Injunction
An injunction is a judicial order that restrains a person from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the legal right of another, or that compels a person to carry out a certain act, e.g., to make restitution to an injured party. Injunctions are a form of equitable relief, meaning they are remedies that are provided by the court when legal remedies (such as monetary damages) are insufficient or inadequate to resolve the harm.
Injunctions can be classified into different types based on their purpose and the timing of their issuance:
Preventive/Prohibitory Injunctions: These are orders that prevent a party from doing something. For instance, a court might issue an injunction to stop the demolition of a historic building.
Mandatory Injunctions: These orders require a party to take a particular action. An example would be a court ordering a company to clean up environmental pollution it caused.
Temporary (or Interim) Injunctions: These are granted before the final determination of the case to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable harm. They are usually in effect for a specific period.
Permanent (or Final) Injunctions: These are issued as a final order in a case, after all the facts have been considered. They permanently prohibit or compel an action.
Ex parte Injunctions: Granted without hearing the party against whom the injunction is issued, usually because there is an urgent need for immediate action to prevent irreparable damage. The court typically requires the matter to return to court within a short period to give the other party a chance to be heard.
The process and requirements for obtaining an injunction vary by jurisdiction but generally involve the applicant proving that there is a substantial issue to be tried, that there is a risk of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, and that the balance of convenience favors the granting of the injunction. Courts also consider the public interest in deciding whether to grant an injunction.
Given their significant impact, injunctions are considered extraordinary remedies and are not granted lightly. The decision to grant an injunction is at the discretion of the court, based on the principles of equity.
.png "Injunction Act in India")
Injunction act in India
In India, the primary legislation governing the issuance of injunctions is the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This Act deals with the various aspects of granting specific relief to parties, including injunctions, which are orders by the court requiring a party to do or refrain from doing a specific act. Injunctions can be temporary or permanent and are meant to prevent irreparable damage or to preserve the status quo until the final resolution of legal rights.
The law governing injunctions is primarily contained in the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This Act provides a legal framework for obtaining both temporary and permanent injunctions in civil cases to prevent the breach of an obligation, protect property rights, or prevent any other form of legal injury.
Temporary Injunctions
(1) Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specific 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 rights of the plaintiff.
Explanation:
- Temporary injunctions are provisional or interim orders given by a court.
- They are meant to last only for a specified period or until the court decides to issue a further order regarding them.
- They can be issued at any stage of a legal proceeding.
- The main purpose is to maintain the status quo and prevent harm or injustice that might occur if the court did not intervene before the case is fully resolved.
- Their issuance is governed by specific rules laid out in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Perpetual Injunctions
CHAPTER VIII , Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
—(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred
to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.
(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:—
(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused,
by the invasion;
(c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
Explanation
A perpetual injunction is a legal order that permanently prevents an individual or entity (the defendant) from performing actions that would breach the rights of another (the plaintiff). Here's a breakdown of the key points:
General Grounds for Granting a Perpetual Injunction (Sub section 1)
A perpetual injunction can be issued to protect the plaintiff from a breach of an obligation that benefits them. This obligation can be explicit (clearly stated) or implied (suggested or inferred from actions or circumstances).
Obligations Arising from Contracts (Sub section 2)
If the obligation comes from a contract, the court will follow specific rules and provisions laid out in Chapter II, which details how contractual obligations are to be interpreted and enforced.
Specific Conditions for Granting a Perpetual Injunction Related to Property Rights (Subsection 3)
The court may issue a perpetual injunction to protect the plaintiff's rights to or enjoyment of property under certain conditions:
Trustee Relationship (3a): If the defendant is supposed to manage the property in question for the plaintiff's benefit (acting as a trustee).
No Standard for Damage (3b): If it's impossible to determine the actual damage or potential damage from the defendant's actions.
Inadequate Monetary Compensation (3c): If monetary compensation wouldn't be sufficient to address the harm caused by the defendant's actions.
Preventing Multiple Legal Actions (3d): If issuing an injunction would prevent the need for numerous future legal proceedings on the same issue, thus saving judicial resources and providing a clearer resolution.
In essence, the law provides for perpetual injunctions as a means to permanently protect an individual's rights when monetary compensation is inadequate or when the nature of the obligation or infringement is such that only a cease in action by the defendant can provide appropriate relief.
Mandatory Injunctions
CHAPTER VIII, Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts.
Explanation
This statement describes a scenario in which a court has the discretion to issue an injunction as a remedy in a legal dispute. An injunction is a legal order that either restrains someone from doing something (preventive) or requires them to do something (mandatory).
Purpose of the Injunction
- The primary aim is to stop a party (the defendant) from violating a duty or obligation they have towards another party (the plaintiff).
- Beyond just preventing a breach, the court can also order the defendant to perform specific acts that they are obligated to do.
Conditions for Issuance
- The court can only issue such an injunction if it is capable of enforcing the specific acts it aims to compel. This means the court must have practical means to ensure compliance with its order.
- The court has the authority to decide whether or not to grant the injunction, based on the circumstances of the case. This decision is made at the court's discretion, meaning it will consider the fairness, the necessity, and the consequences of issuing such an order.
In essence, this provision allows courts to actively ensure that obligations are met, not just by stopping someone from breaking an agreement but also by requiring them to fulfill their duties as outlined in that agreement, provided such enforcement is within the court's power. This tool is particularly valuable in situations where simply stopping a breach is insufficient to remedy the harm or fulfill the needs of the plaintiff.
Damages in lieu of, or in addition to, injunction
CHAPTER VIII, Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
Damages in lieu of, or in addition to, injunction.—(1) The plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction under section 38, or mandatory injunction under section 39, may claim damages either in addition to, or in substitution for, such injunction and the court may, if it thinks fit, award such damages.
(2) No relief for damages shall be granted under this section unless the plaintiff has claimed such relief in his plaint: Provided that where no such damages have been claimed in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceedings, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including such claim.
(3) The dismissal of a suit to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff shall bar his right to sue for damages for such breach.
Explanation
This provision discusses the scenario where a plaintiff, who is suing for a perpetual or mandatory injunction, can also seek damages either as an additional remedy or as an alternative to the injunction. Here's a breakdown of the key points:
Damages Alongside or Instead of an Injunction
Option for Plaintiffs: When filing a lawsuit for a perpetual injunction (to permanently prevent a certain action) or a mandatory injunction (to compel someone to take a specific action), the plaintiff can also claim damages. Damages are monetary compensation for harm or loss suffered.
Court's Discretion: It's up to the court to decide whether to award these damages. This decision will depend on the circumstances of the case and whether the court deems it appropriate to grant monetary compensation in addition to or instead of an injunction.
Claiming Damages
Requirement in the Plaint: The plaintiff must explicitly claim damages in their initial lawsuit document (plaint). If they fail to do so, they cannot be awarded damages later.
Amendment to Include Damages: However, the court can allow the plaintiff to amend their plaint to include a claim for damages at any stage of the proceedings. This amendment must be on terms that the court considers fair.
Effect of Dismissal on Damages Claim: If the court dismisses the lawsuit aimed at preventing a breach of obligation, this decision also eliminates the plaintiff's right to pursue damages for that breach. Essentially, if the main claim for an injunction is rejected, the plaintiff cannot later seek monetary compensation for the same issue.
In summary, this provision offers flexibility to plaintiffs seeking an injunction by allowing them to also claim damages, either as a complement to the injunction or as an alternative remedy. However, it emphasizes the importance of explicitly claiming such damages in the initial lawsuit and outlines the consequences of the suit's dismissal on pursuing damages.
Injunction when refused
CHAPTER VIII, Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
—An injunction cannot be granted—
(a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings;
(b) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought;
(c) to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body;
(d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter;
(e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced;
(f) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance;
(g) to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced;
(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust;
[(ha) if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or
interfere with the continued provision of relevant facility related thereto or services being the subject matter of such project.]
(i) when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to be the
assistance of the court;
(j) when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.
Explanation
This passage outlines specific situations where an injunction, a court order that requires someone to do or to refrain from doing something, cannot be granted. Each point addresses different circumstances that limit the court's ability to issue an injunction:
(a) Against Judicial Proceedings: An injunction cannot stop someone from continuing with a lawsuit already in progress, unless doing so is necessary to avoid multiple lawsuits about the same issue.
(b) Outside Court's Jurisdiction: It can't be used to stop proceedings in a court that isn't under the authority of the court from which the injunction is sought.
(c) Legislative Processes: An injunction cannot prevent someone from making applications or appeals to legislative bodies.
(d) Criminal Proceedings: It can't stop someone from starting or continuing criminal legal actions.
(e) Non-enforceable Contracts: If a contract's specific performance (doing exactly what the contract says) wouldn't be enforced by the court, then an injunction can't be used to prevent its breach.
(f) Unclear Nuisance: It can't be used to stop an act that isn't clearly going to be a nuisance (annoyance or harm to others).
(g) Accepted Breaches: If the plaintiff has accepted (acquiesced) ongoing breaches, they can't later seek an injunction against them.
(h) Alternative Relief Available: An injunction isn't granted if there's another effective way to address the issue, except in cases of breach of trust.
(ha) Infrastructure Projects: It can't be issued if it would hinder or delay infrastructure projects, or affect the provision of related facilities or services.
(i) Plaintiff's Conduct: If the plaintiff or their agents have acted in ways that make them undeserving of the court's help, an injunction won't be granted.
(j) No Personal Interest: It can't be granted if the plaintiff doesn't have a personal stake in the outcome of the matter.
These limitations are designed to ensure that injunctions are used judiciously, respecting the jurisdictional boundaries, the rights to legal recourse, and the significance of the plaintiff's conduct and interests in the matter at hand.
Injunction to perform negative agreement
CHAPTER VIII, Section 42, of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (e) of section 41, where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain act, the circumstance that the court is unable to compel specific performance of the affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting an injunction to perform the negative agreement:
Provided that the plaintiff has not failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him
Explanation
If a contract includes a part that requires someone to do something specific (an affirmative agreement), and that part can't be enforced by the court (meaning the court can't force the person to do what they agreed to do), the court can still enforce the part of the contract that requires them not to do something (a negative agreement). This enforcement can take the form of an injunction, which is a court order stopping someone from doing a certain act.
The key condition here is that the person asking for the injunction (the plaintiff) must have followed the contract's terms as far as they are required to. In other words, they can't ask the court to enforce the contract against the other party if they themselves have not met their obligations under the contract.
This rule ensures that even when the positive, actionable parts of a contract cannot be directly enforced, the courts still have the power to uphold the integrity of the contract by preventing actions that go against it. It balances the enforcement of contracts, recognizing that while not all agreements can be compelled through direct action (like making someone perform a specific task), it is still possible to prevent them from taking actions that would violate the contract's terms.
Injunction in Indian Contract Act, 1872
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, does not directly deal with the issuance of injunctions. Injunctions are primarily governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as I mentioned previously. However, the concept of injunctions is indirectly related to the enforcement of contractual obligations and the prevention of breaches.
Relevant Connections in the Indian Contract Act:
Section 27: This section deals with the restraint of trade and declares agreements restraining an individual from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business as void to the extent of the restraint, except under specified conditions. While the Indian Contract Act does not provide for injunctions, disputes arising from agreements with restraint clauses (which are considered reasonable and thus enforceable) might lead to a party seeking an injunction under the Specific Relief Act to prevent a breach of such clauses.
Section 73 and Section 74: These sections deal with the compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract and compensation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated, respectively. In cases where damages are not deemed an adequate remedy for the breach of contract, the aggrieved party may seek specific performance or an injunction under the Specific Relief Act
How Injunctions Relate to Contractual Obligations:
Although the Indian Contract Act governs the agreements and contractual obligations between parties, when it comes to enforcing these obligations or preventing breaches, the Specific Relief Act takes precedence. For example, if a party is in breach of a non-compete clause deemed reasonable and thus enforceable under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, the aggrieved party may seek a temporary or permanent injunction under the Specific Relief Act to prevent the continued breach of contract.
In essence, while the Indian Contract Act sets out the framework for contractual relationships and their enforceability, the Specific Relief Act provides the mechanisms, such as injunctions, to enforce these rights or prevent breaches. This demonstrates the interplay between the two acts in the broader context of contract law and civil remedies in India.
Mareva Injunction in India
A Mareva injunction, known internationally and recognized in various jurisdictions, is a type of court order that prevents a defendant from disposing of assets until a judgment can be obtained and enforced. Its primary purpose is to ensure that the assets in question remain available to satisfy a future judgment awarded to the plaintiff. This type of injunction is named after the case Mareva Compania Naviera SA v. International Bulkcarriers SA (1975) 2 Lloyd's Rep 509, a landmark decision in English law.
In India, while the term "Mareva injunction" might not be explicitly used within the statutes, the principles underlying such injunctions are applied under the broad umbrella of the powers of Indian courts to issue interim orders and injunctions under various laws, particularly the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Injunction order in India
An injunction order in India is a judicial remedy issued by a court that either restrains a party from doing a specific act (prohibitory injunction) or mandates a party to perform a specific act (mandatory injunction). It is a form of equitable relief that aims to prevent harm or ensure that a particular action is taken to prevent injustice. Injunctions are governed by both the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Order 39, Rules 1 & 2: Empowers the court to grant temporary injunctions in cases of emergency to prevent any defendant from causing damage to the plaintiff, which would be against the interests of justice. This includes both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions.
Injunction cases in India
In India, injunctions have been a critical tool in the judicial system for preventing irreparable harm, preserving the status quo, or compelling individuals or entities to refrain from specific acts. Several landmark cases have shaped the understanding and application of injunctions within Indian jurisprudence. Below are a few notable cases:
1. Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd., 2003
In this case, the Bombay High Court dealt with issues of copyright infringement, granting a temporary injunction to protect the intellectual property rights of Zee Telefilms, emphasizing the importance of copyright law in fostering creativity.
2. Shree Vindhya Paper Mills Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995
This case by the Supreme Court of India is often cited for its detailed discussion on the principles that govern the grant of injunctions, setting a precedent for future cases regarding the necessity of proving a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
3. Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh, 1992
This Supreme Court case is significant for its exploration of the conditions under which temporary injunctions may be granted. It emphasized the importance of showing a strong prima facie case, likelihood of irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience in favor of the applicant.
4. UTV Software Communications Ltd. vs. 1337X.TO and Ors., 2019
A landmark case by the Delhi High Court introducing the concept of dynamic injunctions in India to combat online piracy effectively. The court's decision to allow the extension of injunction orders to mirror websites showcases the judiciary's adaptability to new challenges posed by the internet.
5. Monsanto Technology LLC vs. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., 2018
In this dispute over genetically modified cotton seeds, the Delhi High Court dealt with complex issues related to patent infringement, intellectual property rights, and the enforceability of licensing agreements, highlighting the critical role of injunctions in IP law.
6. Deoraj vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2019
This case from the Bombay High Court stands out for its focus on environmental conservation, where an injunction was granted to prevent the cutting of trees in Aarey Colony for a metro car shed project, balancing development needs with environmental protection.
7. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. vs. Harinder Kohli, 2008
In this Delhi High Court case, the court granted an injunction against the unauthorized release of a dubbed version of the movie "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". This case is pivotal for understanding the enforcement of copyright laws and the protection of intellectual property rights in the digital era.
8. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., 2007
The Bombay High Court granted an injunction in a trademark dispute between two major corporations over the advertisement and branding strategies, emphasizing the importance of trademark protection and the prevention of unfair trade practices.
9. Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd, 2019
This significant Delhi High Court ruling revolved around e-commerce and direct selling guidelines. The court's decision to lift the injunction previously granted against Amazon and Flipkart for selling Amway products without consent highlighted the evolving nature of trade and commerce laws.
10. Bayer Corporation vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019
In a case related to the pharmaceutical industry and patent law, the Delhi High Court dealt with the issue of compulsory licensing. Although not primarily about injunctions, the case touches upon the broader legal frameworks within which injunctions are sought in patent infringement disputes.
11. Ericsson vs. Xiaomi Technology, 2014
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction against Xiaomi for infringing Ericsson's patents related to wireless technology standards. This case underlines the critical role of injunctions in protecting patent rights and the challenges posed by technology in intellectual property law.
12. Star India Pvt Ltd vs. Haneeth Ujwal and Ors., 2018
This case dealt with the unauthorized broadcasting of cricket match footage. The Delhi High Court's order for a dynamic injunction against various internet service providers and websites underscored the challenges of copyright infringement in the digital age and the legal system's efforts to combat them.
These cases, spanning various sectors such as entertainment, FMCG, e-commerce, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, and sports broadcasting, demonstrate the broad applicability and critical importance of injunctions in protecting legal rights and interests in India. They reflect the judiciary's adaptability to changing societal norms, technological advancements, and economic practices, shaping the legal landscape for injunctions and their enforcement.
Injunction against landlord in India
In India, seeking an injunction against a landlord can be a recourse for tenants facing issues such as illegal eviction, failure to make necessary repairs, or any other action by the landlord that violates the terms of the lease agreement or applicable laws. The legal framework for this process primarily falls under the jurisdiction of civil courts, and the specific laws or acts that might apply can vary depending on the nature of the tenancy and the location of the property. Here are some key points regarding seeking an injunction against a landlord in India:
Legal Provisions
Specific Relief Act, 1963: This Act provides the general legal framework for obtaining both temporary (ad interim) and permanent injunctions in civil disputes, including those between landlords and tenants.
Rent Control Laws: Various states in India have their own Rent Control Acts, which provide specific protections for tenants against unfair eviction, rent hikes, and other issues. These acts also outline the legal procedures tenants must follow to resolve disputes with landlords.
Process
Filing a Suit: The tenant must file a suit in the appropriate civil court seeking an injunction against the landlord. The suit should detail the nature of the dispute, the legal rights violated, and the specific injunction sought.
Temporary Injunction: The court may grant a temporary injunction to provide immediate relief to the tenant while the case is being heard. This is typically done to prevent irreparable damage or to maintain the status quo.
Permanent Injunction: After hearing the case, if the court finds merit in the tenant's claims, it may grant a permanent injunction against the landlord, legally prohibiting them from continuing the disputed actions.
Considerations
Legal Advice: Given the complexities of property laws in India, it's advisable for tenants to seek legal advice or representation when considering action against a landlord. A lawyer can help navigate the specific legal requirements and ensure that the tenant's rights are effectively protected.
Evidence: Tenants must provide substantial evidence to support their claims for an injunction. This might include lease agreements, correspondence with the landlord, photographs, witness testimony, and any other relevant documentation.
Jurisdiction: The suit must be filed in a court that has jurisdiction over the area where the property is located.
Seeking an injunction against a landlord is a significant legal step and should be considered carefully. It's important for tenants to exhaust all reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute amicably before resorting to legal action.
Judicial Interpretation
Indian courts have extensively interpreted the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, emphasizing the need for a cautious approach in granting injunctions, especially when it involves restraining a person from exercising their legal rights or involves mandatory actions that could cause hardship.
Injunctions serve as a vital tool in the Indian legal system for the protection of rights and interests pending litigation and for ensuring the enforcement of rights where compensation is inadequate.
Key considerations for granting injunctions
In India, courts take into account several key considerations before granting an injunction. These considerations are designed to ensure that injunctions are issued judiciously, balancing the interests of both parties while also taking into account the larger interest of justice and equity. Here are the primary considerations:
1. Prima Facie Case
The applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case in their favor. This doesn't mean that the applicant has to prove their case beyond doubt at this stage but must show sufficient evidence indicating that they have a serious question to be tried in the court.
2. Balance of Convenience
The court assesses which party would suffer more harm from the granting or refusal of an injunction. The balance of convenience must tilt in favor of the applicant for an injunction to be granted. The court considers whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and whether this harm outweighs any potential harm to the respondent if the injunction were granted.
3. Irreparable Injury
The applicant must prove that the injury or harm they would suffer without the injunction cannot be adequately compensated through monetary damages. The harm must be significant and of a nature that cannot be easily quantified or repaired.
4. Public Interest
In certain cases, especially those involving larger public interests or rights, the court also considers the impact of granting or refusing the injunction on the public. The court aims to ensure that its decision does not adversely affect public interest or contravene public policy.
5. Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings
The court may consider whether granting an injunction would avoid multiple legal proceedings related to the same matter, thus saving judicial time and resources and preventing inconsistent decisions.
6. No Delay in Seeking Relief
The court looks unfavorably upon applicants who delay seeking injunctive relief. An injunction is an equitable remedy, and equity aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. Therefore, an applicant must apply for an injunction promptly upon realizing their right is being infringed.
7. Possibility of Undue Hardship
The court considers whether granting the injunction would cause undue hardship to the respondent, which may be disproportionate to the benefit accruing to the applicant. The court seeks to avoid situations where the injunction would be more oppressive to the respondent than beneficial to the applicant.
These considerations are not exhaustive, and courts have the discretion to take into account other relevant factors depending on the specific circumstances of each case. The overarching principle is that the grant of an injunction must be equitable and just, taking into account the interests of both parties and the requirements of justice.
Reference: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1583/2/A196347.pdf
.png)
COMMENTS