4 Natl LUDelhi Stud LJ20

DATE DOWNLOADED: Thu Apr 9 01:35:50 2020
SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline
Citations:
Bluebook 20th ed.

Aditya Swarup, The Prima Facie Standard for Interim Injunctions in India, 4 Nat'l
L.U. Delhi Stud. L.J. 20 (2017).
ALWD 6th ed.

Aditya Swarup, The Prima Facie Standard for Interim Injunctions in India, 4 Nat'l
L.U. Delhi Stud. L.J. 20 (2017).
APA 6th ed.

Swarup, A. (2017). The Prima Facie Standard for Interim Injunctions in India.
National Law University Delhi Student Law Journal, 4, 20-46.
Chicago 7th ed.

Aditya Swarup, "The Prima Facie Standard for Interim Injunctions in India," National
Law University Delhi Student Law Journal 4 (2017): 20-46
McGill Guide 9th ed.

Aditya Swarup, "The Prima Facie Standard for Interim Injunctions in India" (2017) 4
National L U Delhi Student LJ 20.
MLA 8th ed.

Swarup, Aditya. "The Prima Facie Standard for Interim Injunctions in India." National
Law University Delhi Student Law Journal, 4, 2017, p. 20-46. HeinOnline.
OSCOLA 4th ed.

Aditya Swarup, 'The Prima Facie Standard for Interim Injunctions in India' (2017) 4
Nat'l LU Delhi Stud LJ 20
-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:
Copyright Information
THE PRIMA FACIE STANDARD FOR INTERIM
INJUNCTIONS IN INDIA
Aditya Swarup*
One ofthe most significantand engaging aspects ofa civil suit is the granting
of an interlocutory injunctionpending the final decision in the matter The
grant of such an injunction is meant to be purely provisionalin nature, with
the objective of maintaining status quo, and in the hope that a party does
not suffer irreparableharm. Indian courts have time and again stated that
to grant an interlocutory injunction, the existence of a prima facie case,
irreparableharm and a balanceofconvenience must be shown. With regards
to prima facie case, as far back as 1900, Sir John Woodroffe presciently
wrote that being a severe remedy, an injunctionwill not be grantedin thefirst
instance except upon a clearprimafacie case and upon positive averments
of the equities on which the applicationfor the relief is based. However the
term 'primafacie'case has acquiredvaried meanings and conceptions over
time. It is one of the purposes ofthis paper to set out the variedmeanings of
the term.
The central argument of this paper is that our varied conceptions of a

prima facie case are closely linked to judicial backlog and delays. Today,
as a consequence of trialstaking years to complete, interlocutoryinjunction
hearings have become so-called 'mini-trials'; in stark contrast to the
strictures andguidelinespassedby variouscourt decisions, importantamong
them being the House ofLords decision in American Cyanamidv Ethicon - a
case that ispainstakinglyrevered in India. To understandthe phenomenon of
'mini-trials'andits link to a primafacie case, this paperwould also examine
the British experience in the 1960s and 70s.
I. INTRODUCTION
The American scholar John Leubsdorf, in a landmark article, described interim injunctions
as 'the most striking remedy wielded by contemporary courts'.' The statement remarkably
Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School. The initial research for this paper was undertaken
as part of my M.Phil thesis at the University of Oxford and is also part of a proposed book on the
subject of injunctions. An English law version of this paper is published as 'Rethinking American
2017 The Prima Facie Standardfor Interim Injunctions in India 21
holds true even today. With burgeoning litigation in most courts in India, interim injunctions
are an important component of litigation. As far back as 1900, Sir John Woodroffe presciently
wrote 2 that being a severe remedy, an injunction will not be granted in the first instance
except upon a clear prima facie case and upon positive averments of the equities on which
the application for the relief is based. To show a prima facie case, the applicant must allege
positively the facts constituting his ground for relief, although it is not essential that he should
establish his case upon an application for an interlocutory injunction with the same degree of
certainty that would be required upon the final hearing.3 The Court will not and ought not to
decide which of the parties is in the right and it will merely look at all the facts of the case and
consider whether it is right that the applicant should suffer the alleged threatened injury whilst
his rights are being investigated.4 If the statement of facts alleged by the applicant is true
and raises a substantial question as to what the rights of the parties are, an injunction will be
granted. The Court must proceed on probabilities and a contradiction upon the facts in itself
is not a bar to the issue of an interim injunction. The Court must be guided by a discretion
according to the exigencies and the nature of each particular controversy.
While most of what was stated by Sir John Woodroffe elucidates what the law ought to
be, it is respectfully submitted that it does not reflect the current state of law. The phrase 'a
prima facie case' literally means 'at first sight' and can be legally construed to mean 'on first
appearance but subject to further evidence or information'.6 It had long been accepted that
an applicant was not required to demonstrate that he would succeed at trial.7 This paper is an
attempt to further examine the scope and extent of an inquiry into a prima facie case.
Further, even though the Courts have said that the discretion vested in them to grant
injunctions has to be exercised not arbitrarily or capriciously, but judiciously and fairly
on reasonable grounds,8 the Courts have given varied interpretations of what needs to be
established to show a prima facie case. One line of cases in the past indicated that the applicant
was only required to show that there was 'a serious question to be tried" and the claim was not
Cyanamid: Procedural and Timely Justice' (2012) 31(4) Civil Justice Quarterly 475-493. I would
like to thank Himanshi Bhadoria, a third year student at Jindal Global Law School for assisting me
with further research and painstakingly putting together this article.
1 John Leubsdorf, 'The Standard for Preliminary Injunctions' (1978) 91 Harv L Rev 525.
2 J G Woodroffe, The Law Relating to Injunctions in British India (1st edn, Thacker, Spink, and Co
1900) 100-102.
3 ibid.
4 ibid
5 ibid.
6 Black Law Dictionary(10th edn, West 2014) 2-3, 1909.
7 Powell v Lloyd (1827) 1 Younge and Jervis' Exchequer Reports 427. See Adrian Zuckerman, Zuck-
erman on Civil Procedure:Principles& Practice (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2013) para 10.29.
8 AllahabadBank v Rana Sheo Ambar Singh AIR 1976 All 447.
9 Walker v Jones (1865) 16 ER 151; Jones v PacayaRubber and Produce Co Ltd [ 1911] 1 KB 455;
22 2LUD Student Law Journal Vol 4
frivolous or vexatious.' Another line of cases stated that the applicant was required to show 'a
probability' that he would be entitled to relief." A third line of cases states that the applicant
must show 'a strong prima facie case' 1 2 based on affidavit evidence and the Court would
make out a prima facie case only after 'carefully analysing the pleadings and documents on
record'. 3 In light of these authorities and the varied conceptions of prima facie case, it is
difficult to state what the law really is.
The central argument of this paper is that our varied conceptions of prima facie case are
closely linked to judicial backlog and delays. Today, as a consequence of trials taking years
to complete, interlocutory injunction hearings have become so called 'mini-trials', in stark
contrast to the strictures and guidelines passed by various court decisions, important among
them being the House of Lords decision in American Cyanamid v Ethicon'" - a case that is
painstakingly referred to this day in India. To understand the phenomenon of 'mini-trials',
we would do well to learn from the British experience in the 1960s and 70s. Part II of this
paper would examine the varied definitions of prima facie case in India and trace its historical
origins. Part III would analyse the decision of the House of Lords inAmerican Cyanamid and
its use in case management. Part IV would analyse the impact ofAmerican Cyanamidin India.
Part V looks at the present day understanding of prima facie case in India.
II. A 'SERIOUS QUESTION TO BE TRIED', 'PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS' AND A

'STRONG PRIMA FACIE CASE'
The early conceptions of what constitutes a prima facie case arose out of two sets of
decisions; Walker v Jones" on the one hand, and Preston v Luck 6 and Challenderv Royle 7 on
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon [1975] AC 396. For Indian cases, see Bishambar Nath Jaithy v
Municipal Commissioner AIR 1926 Lah 589; Damodar Valley Corporationv HaripadaDas AIR
1978 Cal 489; ShankarlalDebiprasadv State ofMadhya Pradesh (1978) MPLJ 419; United Com-
mercialBank v Bank ofIndia AIR 1981 SC 1426.
10 Rajesh Kumar v Manoj Jain (1998) 47 DRJ 353; PrasantaKumar Ganguly v Ashir Chandra Sen
2012 SCCOnline Cal 10192; Damodar Valley (n 9); Supreme GeneralFilms v DurgaprasadAIR
1984 Bom 131.
11 Challender v Royle (1887) 36 Ch. D 425; Preston v Luck (1884) 27 Ch D 497. See also ithal v
Dawoo AIR 1931 Nag 106; Colgate Palmolive Ltd. v Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (1999) 7 SCC 1;
DalpatKumarv PrahladSingh (1992) 1 SCC 719; Sreedhara Shenoy v K Thanumalayam AIR 1952
Ker 90.
12 J T Stratford & Son Ltd v Lindley [1965] AC 269; New Delhi Theatres v Kailash Chand AIR 1933
Lah 73; Andhra Universityv PAVRaju (1974) 1 APLJ 158; Mukesh v Deo Narayan AIR 1987 MP
85; Shiv Kumar Chadhav Municipal CorporationofDelhi (1993) 3 SCC 161; Uniply Industries v
Unicorn Plywood (2001) 5 SCC 95.
13 MariaSequeria Fernandezv Erasmo Jack (2012) 5 SCC 370 [86].
14 American Cyanamid (n 9).
15 Walker (n 9).
16 (1884) 27 ChD 497.
17 Challender (n 11).
the other. In Walker v Jones, " Lord Justice Turner stated:
The real point before us upon this appeal is, not how these questions ought to
be decided at the hearing of the case, but whether the nature and difficulty of
the questions are such that it was proper that the injunction should be granted
until the time for deciding them should arrive..."
Early Indian cases reverently followed 20 the principle laid down in Walker v Jones. In
Israilv Samser Rahman,21the plaintiff co-owners sought an interim injunction restraining the
remaining co-owners from constructing a building on the land in their possession. The Calcutta
High Court, while approving the decision in Walker v Jones and granting the injunction, held:
It is not necessary for our present purposes, indeed it is not right, that we
should further examine the point with reference to the special facts before
us and thus anticipate the decision of the question in contention between the
parties in the suit. What the Court has, at this stage, to determine is whether
there is a bona fide contention between the parties, or... 'whether there is a
fair and substantial question to be decided as to what the rights of the parties
are .... 22
In BrajendraNath Ghosh v Kashi Bai,23 the Court stated that it is enough for granting an
interlocutory injunction if the plaintiff can show that he has a fair question to raise as to the
existence of the right which he alleged and can satisfy the Court that the property in dispute
should be preserved in its present actual condition until such question can be disposed off. In
interfering by an interlocutory injunction, the Court, in general, does not profess to anticipate
the determination of the right but merely gives it, if, in its opinion, there is a substantial
question to be tried. 24 The aversion of the Court to examine the merits of the case arises out of
procedural justice concerns; that any examination of the merits of the case would amount to
prejudging the case on its merits. 25
In 1975, the House of Lords in American Cyanamidv Ethicon26 stated that all an applicant
18 Walker (n 9).
19 ibid 156; Pacaya (n 9).
20 Israilv SamserRahmanAIR 1914 Cal 362; BishambarNath (n 9). See also FirmRam Kishun Shah
v Jamuna PrasadAIR 1951 Pat 469; State ofBihar v Thakur Mlanmohan Das AIR 1964 Pat 367;
BhagwatPrasadv JitendraNarain 1991(18) ALR 207.
21 ibid.
22 ibid 364.
23 AIR 1946 Pat 177. See also State of Orissa v Orissa Oil IndustriesAIR 1982 Ori 245; Akesh Kumar
Jain v HarneetBakshi 2001 (92) DLT 745.
24 ibid [7].
25 Bishambar Nath (n 9) [1]; DamodarValley (n 9) [5]; BillimoriaJehan Bux Tehmuras v Indian Ins-
titute ofArchitects (2005) 2 Mah U 206.
had to prove to show a prima facie case was that 'the claim was not frivolous or vexatious;
in other words, that there was a serious question to be tried' .27 Indian courts were quick to
borrow from the decision and apply it in India. 28 In Damodar Valley Corporationv Haripada
Das,29 the Calcutta High Court rephrased the guidelines in American Cyanamid in its own
words and, inter alia, held that 'it is not necessary for grant of an ad interim injunction on
a balance of convenience that the plaintiff should succeed in establishing a prima facie case
or a probability that he would be successful at the trial of the action'.30 On the other hand,
and around the same time, there was a series of cases stating that the applicant was required
to show 'a probability' that he would be entitled to relief" to obtain an interim injunction.
In Preston v Luck,3 2 the Court of Appeal in England held that though a Court is not called
upon to decide finally on the rights of the parties, 'it is necessary that the Court should be
satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing, and that on the facts before it
there is a probability that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief'.33 In Challenderv Royle,3 4 where
the plaintiff patentee brought an injunction to restrain threats of legal proceedings from the
defendants, Cotton U stated:
It is very true that in all cases of interlocutory injunctions the Court does
consider and ought to consider the balance of convenience and inconvenience
in granting or refusing the injunction. But there is another very material
question to be considered, has the Plaintiff made out a prima facie case?
That is to say if the evidence remains as it is, is it probable that at the hearing
of the action he will get a decree in his favour?
In India, the departure from prima facie case meaning 'a serious question to be tried' to a
'probability' of success appears with the decision of the Court in Ismail v Tayaballi Essaji.3 5
In that case, the plaintiffs, claiming to be legal heirs of a deceased relative, brought a suit for
partition and possession of certain immovable properties of the deceased. The plaintiffs were
successful in obtaining an interim injunction restraining the defendants from disposing off the
properties. The High Court observed that the suit was filed in 1924, about 26 years after the
27 ibid 406.
28 Gobind Pritamdas Mlalkani v Amarendranath Sircar [1980] 50 Comp Cas 219 (Cal); Amal Ku-
mar Mukherjee v ClarianAdvertising Service Ltd. [1982] 52 Comp Cas 315 (Cal); Amar Talkies v
Apsara Cinema 1982 JLJ 812; Shankarlal(n 9).
29 Damodar Valley (n 9).
30 ibid [5]. See also Preeti Singha Roy v Calcutta Tramways AIR 1986 Cal 305; Hari Kishan Sharma
v MCD ofDelhi 1988 (14) DRJ 134.
31 Challender (n 11); Preston (n 11). See also Vithal (n 11); Colgate (n 11); DalpatKumar (n 11);
Sreedhara(n 11).
32 Preston (n 11).
33 ibid 506.
34 Challender (n 11).
35 AIR 1929 Sind 182. See also Daily Gazette Press v KarachiMunicipality AIR 1930 Sindh 287.
death of the deceased and that it was instituted with the object of preventing the sale of the
properties of the defendants for as long as possible and harassing the defendants.36 The Court
further observed that 'such injunctions are too frequently issued notwithstanding the decisions
of this Court to the contrary'3 7 and that even though the plaintiffs had a prima facie claim for
trial, it was not enough to grant an injunction. The Court held that 'a person who seeks the aid
of the Court by way of interlocutory injunction must as a rule be able to satisfy the Court...
that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing and that on the facts before it there is
a probability that he will be entitled to relief...'.38 Accordingly, the Court examined the merits
of the case to conclude that there was no probability that the plaintiff would be entitled to any
relief and vacated the injunction order.
Similarly, in Vithal v Dawoo,39 the plaintiffs brought a suit against their father and his
various creditors seeking a declaration that the debts mentioned in a list attached to the
plaint were not binding upon their share in the family property, and claiming a partition
of the property. The plaintiffs also applied for an interim injunction restraining any sale or
disposition of the property. The Court observed that there was more than a suspicion that the
suit was a collusive suit with the obvious intention to defeat or, at any rate, delay the claims of
the creditor.40 Accordingly, even though the Court reiterated the principles for the grant of an
injunction and that a prima facie case meant only a finding that there was a serious question to
be tried, it held that the plaintiffs had a burden of proving that the debts did not apply to them
and it was 'difficult for the Court to pass an order on the application for a temporary injunction
without to a certain extent prejudging the case; and the plaintiffs themselves are to blame if,
by pressing an application for a temporary injunction, they draw upon themselves an adverse
order of the Court'.'
In the above two cases, the Courts departed from inquiring whether there was a serious
question to be tried and started examining the probability of the applicant succeeding at trial
to grant an interlocutory injunction. Such departure was prompted by a belief that during that
period, frivolous suits were filed by plaintiffs and injunctions were granted too frequently
by the Courts despite decisions to the contrary - as a consequence of which, the defendants
were continually harassed.4 2 Hence, the Courts felt that a further enquiry into the plaintiffs
case could ensure that the suit is not frivolous or vexatious. In Gopalji Jha v Gajendra
Narayan4 3 the defendant alleged that the suit brought by the plaintiff was barred in law. In
36 ibid [9].
37 ibid [45].
38 ibid [46].
39 Vithal (n l1).
40 ibid [6].
41 ibid [5].
42 Ismail (n 35) [9].
43 GopaljiJha v GajendraNarayan AIR 1936 Pat 226.
those circumstances, the Court held that though it is not called upon to decide whether the
plaintiff will succeed in the suit, it still has 'to consider the probability or otherwise of the
plaintiffs being entitled to any relief in the suit'." Furthermore, in the context of mandatory
injunctions, the Courts resorted to looking at the probability of success as an injunction would
have the consequence of disturbing the status quo and not preserving it."5
It could be argued that the discretion and flexibility accorded to the Courts to grant
injunctions - in view of its equitable roots - permits the Court to divert from inquiring
whether there is 'a serious question to be tried' or assessing the probability of success
depending on the facts and circumstances of each case46 . In Allahabad Bank v Rana Sheo
Singh,"7 the Hon'ble Court stated:
It is however to be remembered that the purpose sought to be achieved by

giving to the court discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction would be
frustrated if the discretion were clogged by a technical rule forbidding its
exercise if the Court evaluated the chances of the plaintiff's ultimate success
at the trial at 50 per cent or less but permitting its exercise if the chances were
more than 50 per cent. No such mathematical formula can be evolved for this
purpose. The discretion has to be exercised not arbitrarily and capriciously
but judiciously and fairly on reasonable grounds depending on the facts
and circumstances of the case and the evidence available to the Court at the
hearing of the application.
With time, the Courts have also started considering 'a strong prima facie case' to determine
whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction."
How does one reconcile these varied interpretations of prima facie case? Is there any
connecting thread between these conceptions and decisions? What is the current state of the
law? It is submitted that, as will be observed from the pages to follow, these varied conceptions
of prima facie case are a consequence of and a response to the problems of judicial backlog
and delay, and frivolous and vexatious litigation. Interlocutory injunction hearings have today
become 'mini-trials' - where the Court conducts a thorough examination of the merits of the
case at the interim stage so as to dispose off the matter. However, to better comprehend this
situation, we need to understand the British experience in the 1960s and early 70s when, in the
face of huge backlog, the Courts were observed to engage in 'mini-trials' and the response to
44 ibid 166.
45 Gogineni Gopaya v Manikonda AIR 1927 Mad 188.
46 Lakshminarasimhiahv Yalakki Gowda AIR 1965 Kant 310.
47 AllahabadBank (n 8).
48 New Delhi Theatres (n 12); KMviMultani v ParamountTalkies [1943] 18 Comp Cas 90; Mac Lab-
oratories v VR Nathan (1968) ILR 3 Mad 253; SKrishnaswamy v South India Film Chamber AIR
1969 Mad 42; UpendraDas v Krushna Sahu AIR 1972 Ori 12; Uniply (n 12); Shiv Kumar (n 12).
such a phenomenon by the House of Lords in American Cyanamid.
III. THE ENGLISH EXPERIENCE AND AMERICAN CYANAMID AND ITS AFTERMATH
As in India, there were diverging opinions in England as to the meaning of a prima facie
case and the extent to which it was to be proved. Some authorities stated that it only needed
to be shown that there was a 'case to be tried'." As stated earlier, in Prestonv Luck,"o Cotton
LJ again argued for the requirement to show a 'probability that the plaintiff is entitled to the
relief'. In Stratford and Sons Ltd. v Lindley," Lord Upjohn, while using the phrase 'strong
prima facie' case, stated that the determination of a prima facie case is based upon affidavit
evidence and must not influence in any way the judgment of the trial judge when it comes to
finally deciding the matter on the merits. In the late 1950s and 1960s in England, there was
a sudden surge in litigation and more importantly, intellectual property litigation. Little was
done in terms of legislative and administrative reform to address this problem. The Courts
however, in response, began to use the interlocutory injunction as a means of providing a rapid
and relatively cheap method of adjudication of disputes. The usual process being that both
the parties would exchange affidavits and the Court would, without making any deliberation
on the requirement of a strict 'prima facie case', hear full arguments on the documentary
evidence and substantive law, and allow or refuse an interlocutory injunction. 52 In effect, a
'mini-trial' was conducted. 5 3
Two factors allowed the Court to embark on such a course. First, the idea that interlocutory
injunctions are a discretionary and flexible remedy accorded to the Courts to do justice so as
not to render the judgment in the case ineffectual.54 As a consequence, there was no clear
deliberation as to the extent to which each of the factors to be taken into account in granting an
injunction, i.e. prima facie case, damages being an inadequate remedy, irreparable harm and
balance of convenience, ought to be considered. This gave the Court a degree of flexibility to
devise its own rules depending on the case at hand.55 Such a robust attitude was given a further
fillip by a second factor concerning the extent and scope of the phrase 'prima facie case'.
Judicial decisions in that period maintaining that inferences as to 'strong prima facie' case are
49 Pacaya (n 9)
50 Preston (n 11) 506.
51 J T Stratford(n 12).
52 Christine Gray, 'Interlocutory Injunctions since Cyanamid' (1981) 40(2) CLJ 307.
53 Grant Hammond, 'Interlocutory Injunctions: Time for aNew Model?' (1980) 30 U Toronto LJ 240,
251. See also 'Note' (1974) Annual Survey of Commonwealth Law 737.
54 Hubbardv Vosper [1972] 1 All ER 1023. This concept is applicable in India and has its roots in
equity. See Seema Arshad Zaheer v Municipal Corporationof GreaterMumbai (2006) 5 SCALE
263.
55 Robert J Sharpe, Injunctions and Specific Performance (3rd edn, Canada Law Book 2000) para
2.70.
to be made out when granting interlocutory injunctions56 allowed the Court to delve deeply
into evidence and ascertain the relative strengths of the parties. For instance, in Cavendish
House (Cheltenham) Ltd. v Cavendish- Woodhouse Ltd.," the Court specified that one must
first look for a prima facie case, the relative strength of the parties, and then the balance of
convenience in granting an interlocutory injunction. To quote Prescott:
The practical effect of the doctrine was that the interlocutory injunction
became a cheap and speedy means of testing the strength of the parties'
cases. That the standard of justice done on motion was high is demonstrated
by the fact that only in very few cases was the result at trial different from
that arrived on the motion.58
Before American Cyanamid, the question was whether the plaintiff had made out a 'prima
facie' case of succeeding at trial and this, to quote the White Book, 'often required a "trial in
miniature"' ,5 involving a detailed investigation of the plaintiffs prospects of success against
those of failure. Parties would submit extensive affidavits to the Court detailing the reasons
for which injunctions ought to be granted and the Court, based on the facts in the affidavits,
would delve into the merits and give a decision which was interlocutory in form but frequently
final in practice. In some cases, the parties, at the start of the hearing asked the Court to treat
the interlocutory hearing as a 'trial of the action' and accepted the order as final judgment.60
According to Grant Hammond,61 this system worked remarkably well as the quality of the
Chancery bench was such that in very few cases was the result at trial different from that on
the motion.62
One consequence of such a procedure was that, based on the result of the interlocutory
injunction, the parties were able to predict the outcome of the final determination and use
the interlocutory order as leverage to settle. Indeed, most passing-off cases were settled on
that basis 63 and Lord Denning himself, in the later case of Fellowes and Sons v FisherLtd., 6 4
commented on the procedure that more than ninety nine percent of the cases were settled
on the basis of this system. 65 In fact, he conveniently referred to it as the 'practice of the
56 Stratford and Sons v Lindley [1965] AC 269.

57 [1970] RPC 234.
58 Prescott, 'Notes' (1975) 91 LQR 168, 169.
59 Jackson, The White Book Service 2012 (Sweet & Maxwell 2012) vol II para 15-9.
60 Computer Vision Corp v Computer Vision Ltd. [1974] FSR 206; Hutton v Esher Urban District
Council [1974] Ch 167; Earl of Leicester v Wells [1973] Ch. 110; Attorney General v Chaudry
[1971] 1 WLR 1614; A & MRecords v Darakdiyan Unreported May 21 1974; Coney v Choyce
[1975] 1 WLR 422; Sinfield v London Transport Executive [1970] Ch 550.
61 Hammond (n 53). See also 'Note' (n 53).
62 Hammond (n 53).
63 Prescott (n 58) 168, 169.
64 [1976] QB 122.
65 ibid 133.
profession' deeply ingrained in case law since 1884.66
As mentioned earlier, one of the reasons the Court could embark on such a task during that
period was due to the degree of flexibility that it accorded to itself in deciding an injunction.
Even in the 1960s, it was emphasised that the grant of an injunction should be flexible and
discretionary and courts must not be tied down by other considerations. 6 7 This measure of
flexibility allowed the courts to have varied interpretations of the factors that need to be
considered in granting an interlocutory injunction - importantly, a prima facie case.When
faced with huge judicial delays, under the garb of a strong prima facie case, the court could
delve deeply into the facts of the case and look into the merits by, in effect, conducting a
mini-trial. While Lord Denning answered critics and justified in Fellowes and Son v Fisher68
the practice of the Court embarking on such 'mini-trials' ,69 such a phenomenon surely raised
questions of civil and procedural justice in a sense that the entire procedure prescribed by
law to conduct trials was rendered futile as parties did not wish to proceed after the interim
injunction order.
Grant Hammond notes that though the English Courts were endeavouring to achieve
flexibility in the face of the litigation explosion, it should nevertheless have been predictable
that sooner or later, questions would be raised as to the desirability of 'mini-trials'.70 It was
against this background that American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon7 ' was decided.
In American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon,72 American Cyanamid contended that Ethicon

was marketing surgical sutures in violation of its patent and brought an action for patent
infringement. It also sought an interim injunction restraining Ethicon from marketing its
product. The High Court judge, after a 3-day hearing, found that American Cyanamid had
made out a strong prima facie case and granted the injunction. The Court of Appeal, after
hearing the case for eight days, held that American Cyanamid had no prima facie chance of
success on the issue of infringement. 7 3 The decision rested on the Court's interpretation of
technical terms in the patent legislation.
The House of Lords, unanimously approving the speech of Lord Diplock, stated that it
would be an unnecessary exercise to look at the merits in detail for the purpose of finding a
66 Fellowes and Son (n 64) 131. Lord Denning referred to Preston (n 11).
67 Harman Pictures A' v Osborne [1967] 1 WLR 723; Donmar Productions Ltd v Bart [1967] 1
WLR 740; Hubbardv Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84. See also Alastair Wilson, 'Granting an Interlocutory
Injunction' (1975) NLJ 302.
68 Fellowes and Son (n 64).
69 His Lordship was referring to articles by Prescott and Alistair Winston cited above.
70 Hammond (n 61).
72 ibid.
73 The Court of Appeal order is reported at [1974] FSR 312.
'strong prima facie case'. Lord Diplock clearly stipulated that in granting an interlocutory
injunction, all that the plaintiff had to show was that that the claim was not frivolous or
vexatious; in other words, that there was a serious question to be tried. 4 Phrases such as 'real
prospect of succeeding', having 'an arguable case' and 'serious question to be tried' have been
used interchangeably in this light.
One of the main reasons why American Cyanamidis one of the most revered judgments
as regards granting interim injunctions today is because for the first time, the House of
Lords attempted to lay down steps or guidelines76 as to the manner of granting interlocutory
injunctions. These may be summarised as follows:
(a) The purpose of an injunctive remedy is to minimise the amount of damage until the
case is decided. To this end the court should not consider the merits of the case beyond
satisfying itself that there is a serious question to be tried.
(b) After that, if damages would be an adequate remedy to compensate the plaintiff, then
no injunction should be granted as the damage would cease to be irreparable.
(c) If damages are not an adequate remedy, the court should consider whether the defen-
dant would be adequately compensated out of the plaintiffs undertaking as to damag-
es, should the defendant succeed at trial. If so, then normally an injunction would be
granted.
(d) Where there is doubt as to the adequacy of damages and whether the undertaking can
compensate the defendant, the court should consider the balance of convenience. The
factors constituting this balance will vary from case to case.
(e) If this factor is evenly weighed, 'it may not be improper to take into account in tipping
the balance the relative strength of each party's case... '.7 This should only be done
when it is clear from the evidence that one party's case is disproportionately stronger
- the Court should not embark upon a preliminary trial of the action on conflicting
written evidence.
It is crucial to note then that Lord Diplock in American Cyanamiddeprecated the inquiry
into the merits or relative strength of the parties' cases. Robert Sharpe argues that an inquiry
into the merits would have required the House of Lords to delve into the technicalities of
74 American Cyanamid (n 9) 406. See also Zuckerman (n 7) para 9.31.

75 The different terms have been taken to have identical meaning. See Smith v Inner London Educa-
tion Authority [1978] 1 All ER 411; Aothercare Ltd v Robson Books Ltd [1979] FSR 466. See also
Tetrosyl v Silver Paintand Lacquer Co Ltd [1980] F.S.R. 68. See also Zuckerman (n 7).
76 In Cayne v GlobalNaturalResourcesPlc [1984] 1 All ER 225, the Court of Appeal mentioned that
the American Cyanamid criteria were mere guidelines and to treat them otherwise would fetter the
discretion granted to the courts in giving interlocutory injunctions.
77 American Cyanamid (n 9) 409.
patent law, and the decision then was probably the only way out.78 Lord Diplock, in a sweeping
statement noted that 'there was no such rule' that the court ought to be convinced of a strong
prima facie case.
This position in England is certainly consistent with the policy behind interim proceedings,
namely that it is not the task of the court to determine who is in the right before a trial has
been conducted, but to maintain a balance so that the action can be tried and determined at a
later date. 9
Criticism of the judgment was not slow to come. Authors like Gore,"o Prescott," and
Wilson82 argued that the House of Lords probably got it wrong and prescribed a test that
was too rigid. Prescott argues that if it is pertinent to ask 'Will the plaintiff suffer irreparable
damage if no injunction is granted?' it also ought to be permitted to ask, 'How sure are we that
the applicant will ultimately suffer legal damage at all?' 8 3
Two cases afterAmerican Cyanamidsought to create exceptions as to the inquiry into the
merits of the case; Fellowes and Son v Fisher"and NWL Ltd. v Woods." In Fellowes and Son
v Fisher,8 6 the defendant employee had signed a contract with the plaintiff, a solicitor's firm,
that he would not work in a competing firm for a certain period after leaving the plaintiff. He
left the plaintiff and started working for a competitor. The plaintiff sued him and applied for
an interlocutory injunction restraining him from working for the competitor until the suit was
decided. Lord Denning, acknowledging that this case was peculiar in the sense that any order
given would achieve a sort of finality even though the trial had not taken place, noted that Lord
Diplock in American Cyanamidhimself stated that 'there may be many other special factors
to be taken into consideration in the particular circumstances of individual cases'.1 According
to Lord Denning, when such circumstances arise, it may not be inappropriate to look into the
relative strengths of each party's case and give an interlocutory injunction accordingly.
In NWL Ltd. v Woods," Lord Diplock, in a labour dispute, interpreted his own decision in
American Cyanamidto state, 'There is nothing in my view in American Cyanamid to suggest
78 Robert Sharpe, Injunctions and Specific Performance(4th edn, Canada Law Book 2012) para 2.220.
79 Andrew Keay, 'Whither American Cyanamid?: Interim Injunctions in the 21st Century' (2004) 23
CJQ 132, 133; Adrian Zuckerman, 'Interim Injunctions on the Merits' (1991) 107 LQR 196. See
also Shri Westarly Dkhar & Ors. v Shri Sehekaya Lyngdoh 2015 STPL (Web) 57 SC (SC)(DB).
80 Andrew Gore, 'Interlocutory Injunctions-A Final Judgment?'(1975) 38(6) MLR 672.
81 Prescott (n 58).
82 Wilson (n 67).
83 Prescott (n 58) 168.
85 NWL Ltdv Woods [1979] 3 All ER 614.
88 NWL (n 85).
that in considering whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction, the judge ought not to
give full weight to the practical realities of the situation to which the injunction will apply.'
The Learned Judge then added that when the grant or refusal of the interlocutory injunction
would have the practical effect of putting an end to litigation, the degree of likelihood that
the plaintiff would have succeeded in establishing his right to an injunction if the action had
gone to trial, is a factor to be brought into the balance by the judge in weighing the risks that
injustice may result from deciding the application one way or the other.
InFactortame,"while accepting the primacy ofAmerican Cyanamid, Lord Goff held that
the principles would not apply to cases where there was a pure question of law involved."o
Similarly, it has been held that the interlocutory decision achieves a certain finality in cases
involving fundamental rights and thus one ought to look into the merits of the case." In
the context of mandatory injunctions, it has been held that a strong showing of the relative
strengths of the parties on the merits is required.9 2
With all these exceptions being created, it is pertinent to ask whether the principles laid
down in American Cyanamid, especially as regards a merits review, hold good today. Adrian
Zuckerman,93 writing in 1991, argues that the decision in American Cyanamid that the Court
ought not to test the relative strength of the parties' cases has been put to restby three decisions
of the court; R v Secretary ofStatefor TransportEx. p Factortame,'CambridgeNutrition Ltd
v BBC9' and Lansing Linde v. Kerr.96 In these cases, the Court sought to create exceptions to
the rule in American Cyanamidand Zuckerman argues that the existence of these exceptions
undermines the justification for the decision itself.97
It may also be opined that after the Privy Council decision in National Commercial
Bank ofJamaicav Olint Corp. Ltd.,98 the strictures passed in American Cyanamidagainst a
merits review are irrelevant. In that case concerning mandatory injunctions, Lord Hoffmann
indicated that among the matters which the court may take into account in granting interim
89 R. v Secretary ofState for TransportExp. FactortameLtd (No.2) [1991] 1 AC 603.

90 The same has been held to apply for public law cases. See Belize Alliance of ConservationNon-Gov-
ernmental Organisations v Departmentof the Environment (Interim Injunction) [2003] UKPC 63.
91 Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1462; Cream Holdings Ltd and others v
Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44.
92 Hounslow London Borough Council v Twickenham [ 1970] 3 All ER 326; Shepherd Homes v Sand-
ham [1971] Ch 340; Bryanston Finance Ltd v de Vries (No.2) [1976] Ch. 63; De Falco v Crawley
BC [1980] 1 All ER 912.
93 Zuckerman, 'Interim Injunctions on the Merits' (n 79).
94 Factortame(n 89).
95 CambridgeNutrition Ltd. v BBC [1990] 3 All ER 523 (CA).
96 LansingLinde v Kerr [1991] 1 WLR 251.
97 Zuckerman, 'Interim Injunctions on the Merits' (n 79) 198.
98 [2009] 1 WLR 1405, 1409.
injunctions are:
The prejudice which the plaintiff may suffer if no injunction is granted or

the defendant may suffer if it is; the likelihood of such prejudice actually
occurring; the extent to which it may be compensated by an award of damages
or enforcement of the cross-undertaking; the likelihood of either party being
able to satisfy such an award; and the likelihood that the injunction will
turn out to have been wrongly granted or withheld, that is to say, the court
&
opinion of the relative strength of the parties'cases."
As a parting observation, it ought to be noted that while the Courts in England have
tried to create exceptions to the guidelines in American Cyanamid, the exceptions are
mainly restricted to intellectual property cases or cases that achieve a form of finality at the
interlocutory stage. These exceptions, however, do not cover the entire gamut of cases that
interlocutory injunctions address, i.e. property cases, contract cases, company law matters and
instances of specific performance.'o To this extent, American Cyanamid is still followed in
these cases and continues to be considered good law.' 0
'
American Cyanamid and Case Management
After understanding the historical background leading up to the decision in American

Cyanamid, it would be appropriate to examine its relationship with case management and
the justice delivery system in England. Case management in this sense, refers to the various
procedures and rules that are designed to ensure that the final decision in the case is decided
in a timely and cost-effective manner, i.e. without unnecessary delays and involving the
appropriate use of resources in proportion to the importance of the case.
The White Book 02 states that the American Cyanamidprinciples, ina sense, are crude case
management rules designed to reduce costs and delays and, in particular, avoid cases being
tried twice.This comment is better understood in the backdrop of the situation existing before
American Cyanamid where huge judicial workload and backlog of cases in the 1960s and
1970s was mainly the result of tremendous satellite litigation, sometimes called 'interlocutory
warfare'.1 03 As mentioned earlier, rather than merely relying on a strict prima facie case, i.e.
99 ibid. (Emphasis added)

100 Recent cases where American Cyanamid has been followed are Lauffer v Barking [2009] EWHC
2360 (QB); Everett v University ofEast London [2009] EWCA Civ 402; Sports NetworkLtdv Cal-
zaghe [2008] EWHC 2566 (QB).
101 Lionel Astor Sheridan has compiled a list of recent case law where the decision has been followed.
See Lionel Astor Sheridan, Injunctions and Similar Orders (1st edn, Barry Rose Law Publishers
1999) app 9A.
102 White Book (n 59) 2792.
103 UK Lord Chancellor's Department, Civil JudicialStatistics (HM Stationery Office, London 1969-
a serious question to be tried, the courts of first instance delved deeply into the merits of the
case and ended up making findings of fact based on affidavit evidence.These findings, if not
resulting in the parties settling the case, gave grounds for interlocutory appeals - mainly on
facts- generating further delays and additional costs.
A study of case law before the decision in American Cyanamid buttresses this opinion
of the situation existing before 1975. Under the garb of seeking a 'strong prima facie' case,
courts often delved deeply into the case and made findings of fact. Consequently, the Court
of Appeal also decided a large number of interlocutory appeals on grounds of fact rather than
important questions of law.'o For instance, in Wallersteinerv Moir,' 5 on an application for
an interim libel injunction, the trial judge heard the matter for 15 days after which the Court
of Appeal heard the appeal over 14 days and gave a lengthy judgment with various findings
of fact.
Such trends were more conspicuous in intellectual property injunctions. In copyright

and passing-off cases, the judges would often make findings of fact and infer the 'strong
possibility' of the existence of an infringement.' 06 In cases concerning patents, the situation
was no different. In Carrol v Tomado Ltd,' 7 Graham J held that the principles on which
injunctions are granted in patent cases ought to be the same as in other cases. This was around
the time of the decision inHubbardvVosper.I However, reports of patent injunctions indicate
that hearings took days and even weeks in some cases with judges carefully dissecting each
piece of evidence in the affidavits to infer an infringement. In OilaMathieson v Biorex Labs
1974). The Report for 1969 observes a marked rise in the number of Motions filed before the
England and Wales High Court, i.e. 1779 in 1969 compared to 1460 in 1968. The Report notes that
while it is not possible to give a breakdown of what these motions were for, presumably the great
majority of these were for injunctions.
104 See Wallersteiner v Moir [ 1974] 1 WLR 991; Roche Products v Berk Pharmaceuticals[ 1973] FSR
345; Hutton (n60); Duke vRobson [ 1973] 1 WLR 267; Total Oil GreatBritain v Thompson Garag-
es Ltd. [1972] 1 QB 318; Hoffman La Roche v DDSA Pharmaceuticals[1969] FSR 410; Legal and
GeneralAssurance Society v Daniel [1967] FSR 512.
105 Wallersteiner (n 104).
106 Computer Vision (n 60); British Northrop Ltd v Texteam Blackburn [1973] FSR 241; Pickwick In-
ternationalInc. v Multiple Sound DistributionInc. [ 1972] 1 WLR 1213; Evans v EradicatureLtd.
[ 1972] FSR 137; Spillers v Quaker Oats [ 1969] FSR 510; Effluent DisposalLtd. v MidlandsEffluent
[1969] FSR 468; A Levey v Henderson-Kenton(Holdings)Ltd [1973] FSR 425.There are however
some cases in this period where the Judges categorically stated that being an interlocutory hearing
they cannot give findings of facts and decided injunctions according to normal principles of 'prima
facie' case and balance of convenience.See Globelegance BVv Sarkissian [1973] FSR 461; LRD
Internationalv Lila Edets Sales [1972] FSR 479; Morcream Products v Heatherfresh [1972] FSR
111; Temple Investments v Hollis Hell [1971] FSR 634; CoralIndex Ltd. v Regent Index Ltd [1970]
FSR 13.
107 Carrolv Tomado Ltd. [1971] FSR 218.
108 Hubbard(n 54).
Ltd.,"o' Graham J heard an injunction application for more than 20 days and delved deeply
into the facts. A similar approach was taken in American Cyanamid itself, where the Judge
(Graham J) took 3 days to hear the interlocutory application.
The fact that the court took an unnecessarily large number of days to decide interlocutory
applications rather than proceed with the trial of the case led to huge delays and inevitably,
a case management concern. As a principle of case management, it is quite obvious that
spending more time in deciding interlocutory applications inevitably means that the court has
less time available to hear other cases thereby leading to judicial delays. At the same time,
parties had resigned themselves to considering interlocutory hearings as mini-trials, and used
the order in the injunction application as leverage to settle the case. Another trend observed is
where parties, seemingly troubled by the huge delays in the court, at the start of the hearing
asked the court to treat the interlocutory hearing as a trial of the action."
The result of the decision in American Cyanamid that all that was required was for the
applicant to show a serious question to be tried was that the court had lowered the threshold
for determining whether an injunction ought to be granted."' Thus, unless a question of law
was involved, the parties had very little chance of appealing against the injunction order. Gray
further notes that very few cases appealing against interlocutory injunction orders are reported
after the decision of the court in American Cyanamidll2 and argues that the weakness of the
pre-Cyanamidapproach lies in the problem of coming to a decision on the merits on the basis
of inadequate, untested, evidence and subsequently the Court of Appeal hearing the appeal on
the same evidence.113
Even judicial pronouncements recognized the impact ofAmerican Cyanamidon the court
workload. Balcombe LJ, in Lawrence David v Ashton," 4 noted that interlocutory applications
consumed too much time and resources and that trials would probably proceed faster if that
were not the case. He also stated that there was a marked improvement in case management
after American Cyanamid."5 In Benchairs Ltd. v Chair Centre Ltd.," 6 when considering
the extent to which the Court of Appeal can intervene with the lower court's findings in an
interlocutory appeal, the Court stated that its powers in such a situation are 'untrammelled' in
nature. Such a ruling inevitably gave a free hand to the appellate courts in hearing interlocutory
109 [1969] FSR 361.

110 Computer Vision (n60); Hutton (n60); Earl ofLeicester v Wells, [1973] Ch 110 ;Attorney General
(n 60); A & MRecords v. Darakdifan, Unreported May 21 1974; Coney (n 60); Sinfield (n 60).
111 White Book (n 59) 2792.
112 Gray (n 52) 315.
113 ibid.
114 [1989] 1 FSR 87, 98.
115 ibid. The same is noted by LA Sheridan (n 101) 170.
116 [1973] FSR 123. See also Bennax vAustin [1955] AC 370.
injunction appeals and interfering with the discretion of the judge.
The argument may be summarised thus; there was an existing problem of burgeoning
delay in the 1960s in response to which, judges started delving deeply into the merits when
considering whether or not to grant interlocutory injunctions. This system, according to some
authors and judges, worked extremely well in that the parties would know at the interlocutory
stages itself, their chances of success and then attempt to settle the cases. If anything, the
rates of disposal and settlement during that period highlight the benefits of this practice."'
American Cyanamid,by banning an inquiry into the merits of cases at the interlocutory stages,
sought to nip the problem of delay in the bud by greatly reducing satellite litigation. To this
extent, it was also a decision in case management. From the latter half of the 1980s however,
there was an increase in satellite litigation in the United Kingdom due to changes in the rules
of discovery and costs, leading to delays - not attributable to injunctions.
IV. AMERICAN CYANAMID IN INDIA
It wasn't long after 1975 that the decision inAmerican Cyanamidv Ethicon"I came to be
recognised by the courts in India. Indian courts soon realised the value and importance of the
judgment and started referring to its principles in deciding cases. At the outset, it would be
interesting to note that what the Indian courts imbibed was not the step-by-step inquiry that
American Cyanamid proposed, but the decision's independent reasoning on prima facie case
and merits inquiries in granting interlocutory injunctions.
In Purna Investments v Southern Steelmet Alloys" 9 - one of the first few cases citing
American Cyanamid- the Karnataka High Court in a case of oppression and mismanagement
under the Companies Act 1956 held that there was no requirement to show a 'strong prima
facie' case to grant an interlocutory injunction. Citing American Cyanamid, the Court held
that all that was required was whether there was a serious question to be tried and the
court need not delve deeply into the merits of the dispute.' 20 Similar cases followed. 2 ' In
Shankarlal Debiprasadv State ofMP,12 2 the Madhya Pradesh High Court referred to each
of the principles enumerated by Lord Diplock in American Cyanamid and applied them in
deciding an interlocutory injunction application. At the same time, in Amar Talkies v Apsara
Cinema,'23 the High Court noted that there had been considerable criticism of the judgment
117 Lord Chancellor's Department Civil Judicial Statistics (HM Stationery Office, London 1969-
1974).
119 [1978] 48 Comp Cas 264 (Kar).
120 ibid.
121 GobindPritamdas(n 28); Amal Kumar (n 28); Amar Talkies (n 28); ShankarlalDebiprasadv State
ofMP (1978) MPLJ 419.
122 (1978) MPLJ 419.
123 Amar Talkies (n 28).
in American Cyanamid immediately after its pronouncement. It held, following the decision
in Fellowes & Sons v Fisher,124 that the decision in American Cyanamid v Ethicon that the
Court must not look at the merits of the case was not a general rule and peculiar to the facts
and circumstances of that case. This decision appears to have been wrongly decided and has
not been referred to in later case law.
InDamodarValley Corporationv HaripadaDas,125 the Calcutta High Court rephrased the

guidelines in American Cyanamidin its own words. However, the guidelines seem to merely
illustrate the Court's understanding of American Cyanamidand do not have any precedential
value as later cases do not seem to have referred to them.
A few observations ought to be mentioned. First, that unlike England in the 1960s and
70s, India did not witness a situation of huge case delays and backlogs 26 during the same
period. Second, the decision in American Cyanamid that the Court ought not to take into
consideration the relative strengths of the parties' cases and only to enquire whether there was
a 'serious question' to be tried was not revolutionary when applied in Indian law.Even before
the decision in American Cyanamidthere were cases in India 27 where the Courts expounded
the meaning of 'prima facie' case to hold that 'prima facie' would not involve delving into the
merits of the case, but merely enquiring whether there was a chance of success based on the
material on record.
What is however to be observed is that there were divergent views on this matter before
1975128 and in this sense, American Cyanamid did great service by clarifying the law on the
subject. While the High Courts were conspicuous in their reference to the principles laid
down in American Cyanamid it was only in 1994 that the Supreme Court first referred to
the decision. In Power Control Appliances v Sumeet Machines,129 the Supreme Court, in a
case concerning copyrights referred to the decision but noted however, that the principles in
American Cyanamidwere similar to the 1957 decision of the Madras High Court in Mohd.
30
Aboobacker v Nanikram Maherchand.1
Before one proceeds to the other Supreme Court decisions referring to American

125 Damodar Valley (n 9).
126 See Supreme Court of India, 'Statement of Institution, Disposal & Pendency of Cases in the Su-
preme Court of India from the year 1950 to 30.09.2008' in Annual Report of the Supreme Court
2007-2008, 63 <http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/annualreport/annualreport2007-08.pdf> accessed
3 June 2012.
127 Mohd. Aboobacker v Nanikram Maherchand(1957) ILR Mad 1049; Seth BanarsiDas Gupta v Seth
Brij Bhushan (1981) 20 DLT 437.
128 Vellakutty v KarthayayaniAIR 1968 Ker 179; Mohan v Narain 1983 MPWN 241; Lakshmi v Kunju
1964 KLT 664.
129 (1994) 2 SCC 448.
130 Aboobacker (n 127).
Cyanamid, it would be pertinent to mention that in the United Kingdom, American Cyanamid
arose out of a specific situation, i.e. patents and sought to apply the principles generally to
ordinary cases such a property and contractual disputes. In that sense, while it would have been
difficult to enquire into the merits at the interlocutory stage as regards intellectual property
cases- merely due to the complexity involved- it would have been far easier to ascertain the
chances of success for parties in ordinary cases like contract, property disputes and torts. In
India, the trend has been to refer to American Cyanamid in ordinary injunction cases and to
restrict its application altogether to intellectual property cases- diverging from the trend in the
United Kingdom.' 3 ' This shall hereto be explained.
In ColgatePalmolive (India)Ltdv HindustanLever,'32 the Supreme Court was considering

whether the guidelines in American Cyanamidwere too rigid and raised doubts as to the legal
efficacy of the guidelines. The Court referred to the ratio of Laddie J in Series 5 Software 33 to
note that the decision in American Cyanamid in no way sought to impinge on the flexibility
granted to the Courts in granting interlocutory injunctions. As in Series 5, the Court took a
lenient view of American Cyanamidto hold that all that the Court forbade was attempts to
resolve serious issues of fact on affidavit evidence. If, however, as in ordinary injunctions, the
Court is able to come to a view as to the strength of the parties' cases on credible evidence, it
can do so.' 34
The implication of this decision was that the Courts could make inferences as to the
strength of the parties' cases as long as they could be made by the evidence placed on record
without resolving difficult, contested issues of fact. As regards situations like intellectual
property disputes where it would be difficult to ascertain the strength of the parties' case on a
bare reading of the evidence, the Supreme Court departed from American Cyanamidto frame
its own test.
In SM Dyechem Ltd. v Cadbury (India) Ltd," the plaintiff applied for an interlocutory
injunction restraining the defendant from using its trademark. The Court was asked to consider
whether when granting a temporary injunction, it ought to consider a prima facie case or
the comparative strength of the case of either parties or merely find out if the plaintiff has
raised a 'triable issue'. The Supreme Court, citing the earlier case of Colgate Palmolive held
that American Cyanamid hadn't diverged from any established legal principles governing the
grant of interlocutory injunctions. Jagannadha Rao J held that:
131 Colgate Palmolive (n 1); Transmission Corporation ofAP v Lanco Kondapalli (2006) 1 SCC 540.
132 Colgate Palmolive (n 11).
133 Series 5 Software v Clarke [1996] FSR 273.
134 A Gurudas vRasaranjan (2006) 8 SCC 367; Nestle India v MoodHospitality Private Limited2010
(42) PTC 514 (Del); Omega SA vAvanti Kopp Electricals 2003 (27) PTC 327 (Mad).
135 (2000) 5 SCC 573.
American Cyanamid cannot be understood as having laid down anything

inconsistent with the 'old practice'. We may also add that now the courts in
England go into the question whether the plaintiff is likely or unlikely to win
in the suit i.e. into the comparative strength of the case of the rival parties
-
apart from the question of balance of convenience.1 36
Thus, after SM Dyechem, the Courts in India now look into the comparable strength of
the parties' cases when granting interlocutory injunctions in trademark matters. With time,
this principle has also been extended to other areas of intellectual property like patents 37 and
copyrights. As will be seen later, such decisions have been crucial in terms of enabling the
Indian courts to embark on mini-trials at the interlocutory stage.
Thus, we would notice that the principles based on which interlocutory injunctions are
granted in India are very similar to those in England.In many instances, it has been observed
that when in doubt, Indian courts still refer to English judgments as to the position of law.In
this light, the decision in American Cyanamid has greatly influenced Indian law. However,
it will be noticed that American Cyanamid, being the case in intellectual property rights
does not find application on that subject in India. As regards intellectual property cases, the
Indian courts have categorically held that the 'comparable strength' of either party ought to
be considered when granting an interlocutory injunction in intellectual property matters
-
diverging from the trend in English law where American Cyanamid principles are still held
sacrosanct in intellectual property cases.
V. THE PRESENT DAY UNDERSTANDING OF A 'PRIMA FACIE' CASE
The preceding paragraphs explain the different conceptions of a 'prima facie' case and the
manner in which the courts observe a prima facie case to grant an interlocutory injunction in
England. With respect to present day injunction hearings in India, it is submitted that like in
England in the 1960s, interlocutory injunction hearings have become so-called 'mini-trials'.
Such mini-trials are a consequence of the huge caseload and judicial backlog in the country
and are in stark contrast to the strictures and guidelines set out by Courts in the past.
At the outset, it is imperative to bring clarity to our understanding of 'mini-trials'. As we

know, ordinarily, the court ought to make the common enquiries when granting interlocutory
injunctions; a prima facie case, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience in favour
of the applicant. In such a situation, a prima facie case may involve an enquiry on whether
136 ibid [21], citing Barclay> Bank Inc v R.B.S. Advanta 1998 RPC 307 (Laddie, J) where such a ques-
tion was posed and where Series 5 Software was followed. Therefore, in trademark matters, it is now
necessary to go into the question of 'comparable strength' of the cases of either party, apart from
balance of convenience.
137 Hindustan Lever Ltd. v Godrej Soaps Ltd. AIR 1996 Cal 367.
that is a serious question to be tried'38 or even ascertain the strength of the parties 'on the
face of the material' on record.'39 When the judge transcends these legal prescriptions and
seeks to enquire in detail the respective strengths of the parties by perusing all the evidence
placed on record under the garb of a 'prima facie' case, one can infer the existence of a mini-
trial. In Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke' Laddie J, when examining the opinion of Lord
Diplock in American Cyanamid'4 ' extrapolated the various characteristics of 'mini-trials'.
While holding that Lord Diplock in that case intended to state that the courts are not justified
in embarking upon anything resembling that of a trial of the action upon conflicting evidence,
he stated that the objective was so as to not engage in mini-trials.142 The learned judge stated
that the courts 'should not attempt to resolve difficult issues of fact or law on applications for
interlocutory relief' and that the Court of Appeal decision in American Cyanamid itself was
the best example of such trials.1'
It is this understanding of mini-trials that we shall analyse when looking at the situation
in India. Despite the right to speedy and effective justice being recognised, the huge backlog
of cases and delays in the courts are damaging the reputation of the judiciary and denying to
the citizens, the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. As of 2011, there are a staggering 32
million cases pending in various courts in India."' Of these, at least 80 cases were pending a
decision or hearing for the past 20 years in the Supreme Court. In addition, over 500,000 cases
involving criminal and civil laws were pending in different High Courts for over 10 years.
Moreover, over 800,000 cases were awaiting disposal by the country's subordinate courts in
32 States and Union Territories.' 5 Estimates record that at the current rates of admission and
disposal, it would take 466 years to clear the backlog of the Delhi High Court alone. 4 6 In this
light, one can give numerous instances of mini-trials in India."
138 United Commercial (n 9); BrajendraNath v Kashi Bai AIR 1946 Pat 177; Nimcha Coal Ltd v Srini-
vas Goenka (1966) 70 CWN 1108; Allappuzha Municipality v TJ PaulAIR 1995 Ker 36; Shakun-
tala Devi v Manoj Kumar 1995 (60) DLT 358.
139 JKrishnamoorthyv Bangalore TurfClub (1975) 2 Kant. LJ 428; Ratna Paulv SubhashRanjan Paul
AIR 2001 Gau 133; Uniply Industriesv Unicorn Plywood Ltd. 2001 PTC 417 (SC); Bate Krishna
Damini v Kailash Chand AIR 1995 SC 453 : MariaSequeria Fernandez v Erasmo Jack 2012 (3)
SCALE 550; A Shanmugam vAriyaKshatriya(2012)4 SCALE 666.
140 Series 5 (n 133) 286.
142 ibid 285.
143 ibid.
144 'Pendency of Cases in Indian Courts: 2011' (PRS Legislative Research 2011) <http://prsindia.
org/parliamenttrack/vital-stats/pendency-of-cases-in-indian-courts-2011-1837/> accessed 16 May
2017.
145 V Adhivarahan, 'Case Management and ADR for the Banking Sector' (Paper presented in Interna-
tional Conference on ADR and Case Management, Law Comnmission of India 2003).
146 'It would take Delhi HC 466 yrs to clear backlog: CJ'IndianExpress, (New Delhi 13 Feb 2009).
147 In Ultra Tech v Alaknanda Cement (Suit No. 743/2006, Bombay High Court, Interlocutory order
dated 28 June 2011 in Notice of Motion No. 1183/2006) the plaintiff filed a suit in the year 2006
Unlike in American Cyanamidwhere the English Courts deprecated the practice of mini
trials, the Indian courts have in fact given sanction to this practice. In Colgate Palmolive
(India) Ltd. v Hindustan Lever Ltd.,'` the basic question before the Court was the extent of
consideration of the strength of a parties' case when granting an interlocutory injunction. The
Court, examining the decision in American Cyanamid, observed that the decision has been
'more misunderstood than understood" 9 and concurred with the views of Laddie J in Series
5 that Lord Diplock did not intend by the last-quoted passage to exclude consideration of the
strength of the cases in most applications for interlocutory relief, and that what was intended
was that the court should not attempt to resolve difficult issues of fact or law on an application
for interlocutory relief. If, on the other hand, the court is able to come to a view as to the
strength of the parties' cases on the credible evidence, then it can do so.
The Supreme Court further held that Laddie J in Series 5 went on to 'record that the
House of Lords in American Cyanamid did not suggest that it was changing the basis upon
which most courts had approached the exercise of discretion" 0 and that Laddie J's view
has 'been able to resolve the issue' of whether the courts can examine the strength of the
parties' case 'without any departure from the true perspective"' of the decision in American
Cyanamid. Accordingly, the Supreme Court stated its own considerations in the matter of
grant of interlocutory injunctions in India to guide the exercise of discretion of the court,
which include that 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.
However, while the aforesaid remains the law, it is submitted that the approach of the
Hon'ble Court in Colgate Palmolive and its interpretation ofAmerican Cyanamidand Series 5
accompanied with a notice of motion asking for an interlocutory injunction to protect his trademark
against the defendant. Kathawala J, after a period of 5 years in 2011 extensively delved into the facts
of the case, the evidence presented by the parties, exhibits and pronounced a 34 page interlocutory
order- as if it was a judgment in the suit itself. The said order was appealed to the division bench
of the Bombay High Court and decided within a period of 8 months. In that judgment, the Hon'ble
bench examined the law related to the case, the controversial facts and upheld the single judge's
order. The suit is still pending in court.
In Lucent Technologies v ICICI Bank Ltd (CS OS No. 386/2005, Order dated 13 October 2009,
Delhi High Court) in a suit filed in 2005 relating to breach of contract, Gita Mittal J of the Delhi
High Court pronounced a 130 page interlocutory order in 2009 settling contentious issues of fact
based on the evidence submitted. The parties appear to have settled the dispute after the order.
In Parle Products v Parle Agro (Notice of Motion No. 4431/2007 in Suit No 3203/2007, Order
dated 18 December 2008, Bombay High Court), RoshanDalvi J., gave a 30 page interlocutory order
after-as earlier-examining the complex facts and circumstances of the case. In 2012, after 4 years
of the interlocutory order remaining in force, the plaintiffs withdrew their suit as it seems that they
had reached a settlement.
148 Colgate Palmolive (n 11).
149 ibid 12.
150 ibid 22.
151 ibid 22.
is rather misplaced. In American Cyanamid, Lord Diplock deprecated a merits based enquiry
as it was not proper to conduct a mini-trial based on facts stated by the parties on affidavits,
untested by oral cross-examination. 5 2 He further held that it was no part of the court's function
at an interlocutory stage 'to try and resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit as to facts on
which the claims of either party may ultimately depend." 53 After detailing the governing
principles on which the court should grant an interlocutory injunction, Lord Diplock held that
it is only after enquiring into the 'uncompensable disadvantage' to the parties, and at stage
of examining the balance of convenience that 'it may not be improper to take into account in
tipping the balance, the relative strength of each party's case'.'" It was more of an exception
than a rule.
In Series 5, Laddie J did not elucidate the stage at which the strength of the parties' case is
to be taken into consideration and this has led to considerable confusion. Nevertheless, it could
be argued that he intended to adhere to the idea that the consideration of the relative strength
of parties' cases was an exception rather than a rule. Any other interpretation would mean
that Series 5 is inconsistent with American Cyanamid.'"' In fact, as stated hereinabove, even
though the courts have tried to create exceptions to the guidelines in American Cyanamid, the
exceptions are mainly restricted to intellectual property cases or cases that achieve a form of
finality at the interlocutory stage. These exceptions, however, do not cover the entire gamut of
cases that interlocutory injunctions address, i.e. property cases, contract cases, company law
matters and instances of specific performance.' 56 To this extent, American Cyanamid is still
followed in these cases and continues to be considered good law.'
The interpretation ofAmerican Cyanamidand Series 5 as placed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has the effect of making the exception, i.e. examining the relative strength of the parties'
cases, the rule. Later decisions of the Supreme Court have accepted this as an established
principle and further extended it.' In Sree Jain Swetambar v Phudan Singh,' the Supreme
Court held that where the trial court grants a temporary injunction without recording its prima
facie satisfaction on merits, the appellate court can set aside the order. In Laxmikant Patel

153 ibid 407.
154 ibid 409.
155 Keay (n 79).
156 Recent cases where American Cyanamid has been followed are Lauffer (n 100); Everett (n 100);
Sports Network (n 100).
157 LA Sheridan has compiled a list of recent case law where the decision has been followed. See LA
Sheridan (n 101).
158 See Sree Jain Swetambar v Phudan Singh (1999) 2 SCC 377; SMDyechem v Cadbury (India)Ltd.
(2000) 5 SCC 573; LaxmikantPatelv Chetanbhai (2002) 3 SCC 65; MGurudas (n 134); Transmis-
sion Corpn. (n 131).
159 Sree Jain (n 158) 381.
v Chetanbhai,'6 0 the Supreme Court held that 'a refusal to grant an injunction in spite of
the availability of facts, which are prima facie established by overwhelming evidence and
material available on record justifying the grant thereof, occasion a failure of justice...'.
In SMDyechem v Cadbury (India)Ltd.,161 one of the issues before the Court was whether
for grant of a temporary injunction, should the Court go by the principle of prima facie case
(apart from balance of convenience) or comparative strength of the case of either parties or
by finding out whether the plaintiff has raised a 'triable issue'. In that case, the appellant
sought for a temporary injunction seeking to restrain the respondent from using the appellant's
trademark. The trial court granted the injunction which order was overturned by the High
Court in appeal. With respect to the issue, the Supreme Court stated that though in American
Cyanamidthe House of Lords observed that it was sufficient if there was a 'triable issue', 16 2
there was considerable criticism of the principles laid down in that case. 6 3 The Court further
held that 'now the courts in England go into the question whether the plaintiff is likely or
unlikely to win the suit i.e. into the comparative strength of the rival parties- apart from
the balance of convenience', and that 'in trademark matters, it is now necessary to go into
the question of comparable strength of the cases of either party, apart from the balance of
convenience.'
The Court merely stated that its earlier decision in Colgate Palmolive was correct
and applied it accordingly. Further, it justified its departure from the American Cyanamid
principles on the ground that 'now the courts in England go into the question whether the
plaintiff is likely or unlikely to win in the suit i.e. into the comparative strength of the case
of the rival parties - apart from the question of balance of convenience'. With respect, this
statement is factually incorrect. While the courts in England have tried to create exceptions to
the guidelines in American Cyanamid, the exceptions do not cover the entire gamut of cases
that interlocutory injunctions address. In fact, American Cyanamidis still reverently followed
in a large number of cases in England.' 64
While it could be argued that the ratio of the Supreme Court in SM Dyechem was only
restricted to trademark cases, the same was extended to cases under Section 9 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act 1996 in Transmission Corpn. of AP Ltd v Lanco Kondapallil65 and
160 Laxmikant Patel v Chetanbhai (2002) 3 SCC 65, 75.

161 SMvlDyechem v Cadbury (India)Ltd (2000) 5 SCC 573.
162 ibid 590.
163 The Hon'ble Court referred to C Floyd, 'Interlocutory Injunctions since Cyanamnid' (1983) 5(9)
European Intellectual Property Review EIPR 238; Cole, 'Interlocutory Injunctions in U.K. Patent
Cases' (1979) European Intellectual Property Review EIPR 7; M Edenborough and Tritton, 'Amer-
ican Cyananid Revisited' (1996) European Intellectual Property Review EIPR 234.
164 See Keay (n 79).
165 Transmission Corpn. (n 131) 553.
44 YLUD Student Law Journal Vol 4
thereafter applied to ordinary injunction cases in M Gurudas v Rasaranjan.166 As a result,

when looking into a prima facie case, the current practice of the Indian courts is to examine
the strength of the parties' cases on merits, based on untested affidavit evidence.
It could be argued that even legislation lends credence to this practice. Before 2002,
under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ('the Code'), parties were required to submit their
respective plaints and written statements within specified time limits and thereafter present
a list of documents and depositions of witnesses at the trial stage.'67 Only the document
on which the suit or defence was based would be filed along with the pleadings, and the
remaining documents could be filed 'at or before the settlement of issues'.168 Such practices
were reminiscent of the law and procedure in England and seem to have worked quite well.
However, in order to tackle the increasing judicial backlog, a reform in civil procedure was
necessitated and the Code was amended in 2002.
A distinguishing feature of the amendment in 2002, relevant to our purpose, was that it
now became obligatory for the parties to file all the documentary evidence available- even if
minimally relevant- and relied on in the pleadings. 6 9 The Delhi High Court in Asia Pacific
Breweries v Superior Industries"0 noted that the sole purpose of asking the plaintiff to file
all documents in his power and possession and to file a list of those documents which are
not in his power and possession was so that the defendant, while filing a written statement
should not only respond to the averments in the plaint, but should suitably be able to respond
to those documents which are relied upon by the plaintiff and should file its own documents,
if any, in order to defend the claim of the plaintiff. Such procedure would invariably help in
the reduction of satellite litigation by not allowing parties to file evidence at every stage of
trial. It would further help in the framing of issues since all the documentary evidence will be
placed on record. In Asia Pacific Breweries,"' the Court further held that the sole purpose of
the amendment was the early completion of trials and reduction of satellite litigation; and that
such purpose would be defeated if the submission of a majority of documents is delayed by
either party and sneaked in at the time of taking evidence - resulting in a de novo trial since
in response to the document allowed to be filed by one party, the other party is to be given a
chance to admit/deny the new allegations and file documents.
166 M Gurudas (n 134) 376.

167 For instance, Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code stipulates that the written statement shall be filed by
the defendant within 30 days of the date of service of the summons to him. Order XVI, Rule 1 of
the Code provides that within 15 days of framing the issues, he parties shall present in Court a list
of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents.
168 Arun Mohan, Justice, Courts and Delays (1st edn, Universal Law Publishing 2009) vol 1412.
169 The amended Order VIII, Rule lA of the Code provides that it is the duty of defendant to produce all
the documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him along with the Written Statement.
170 158 (2009) DLT 670.
171 ibid.
The fact that such documents are to be presented before the first hearing - accompanied
with the interlocutory injunction application - make all the evidence readily available to a
judge when deciding an injunction application. As we are aware, Lord Diplock deprecated the
enquiry into the relative strengths of the respective parties because he felt that at the interim
stage, a court ought not to form an opinion based on inadequate material and evidence on
record.1 72 However, it could be argued that the 2002 amendment addresses his concern about
mini-trials and makes available to the judge all the documentary evidence that each party
wishes to rely upon. A judge may then, not only enquire whether there is a serious question
to be tried, but is also given an opportunity to analyse the relative strengths of the parties and
to form an opinion on the merits of the case. This is further facilitated by the fact that most
evidence today is documentary in nature as a result of the changing times and requirements of
the law. A combination of the law and practice then inevitably, facilitates a mini trial.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Maria SequeriaFernandesv Erasmo Jack 73 has held
that in the broad category of prima facie case, it is imperative for the Court to carefully
analyse the pleadings and the documents on record and only on that basis must the court
infer a prima facie case. 74 This decision adds to a series of decisions whereby the Court has
diverted from the initial understanding of a 'prima facie' case to mean only a triable issue or
a 'serious question to be tried' to a careful scrutiny of the documents and inferences on the
relative strengths of the parties' cases.
VI. CONCLUSION
This article has attempted to show that first, there are varied formulations of what
constitutes a prima facie case in the context of an application for grant of an interlocutory
injunction and that each of these formulations is possibly linked to judicial delay. Second, the
determination of what constitutes prima facie case is also related to case management. Given
the grave problems of delay and huge caseloads in India - in the face of lack of reform by the
Government - the Court has devised mechanisms to conclude trials in an effective and speedy
manner, i.e. by engaging in mini-trials at the interlocutory stage. This conduct of engaging
in mini-trials, however, is not to be considered a problem but one of the consequences of
the problem. As mentioned earlier, one of the factors that allowed the Courts in the UK 7 5
and India to embark on such a course was that interlocutory injunctions are a discretionary
and flexible remedy accorded to the Courts to do justice so as not to render the judgment
ineffectual.1 76 This gave the Court the flexibility to decide on the interplay of the principles for
172 American Cyanamid (n 9) 409. See also Series 5 (n 133).

173 MariaSequeria Fernandezv Erasmo Jack 2012 (3) SCALE 550.
174 ibid. See also A Shanmugam (n 139).
175 Hanunond (n 61) 251.
176 AllahabadBank (n 8). See also Wander v Antox (1990) Supp SCC 727; GujaratBottling v Coca
Cola (1995) 5 SCC 545.
46 YLUD Student Law Journal Vol 4
the grant of injunctions depending on the case at hand.
It is then pertinent to question whether the practice of mini-trials is 'just' in nature. The
expression 'just' in this sense would involve the ideals of civil justice; that it is the function
of the courts to resolve disputes by following due process and increase the probability of
getting the correct result.' 7 As highlighted by Adrian Zuckerman, this idea of justice involves
dimensions of procedural and timely justice; that procedures be suited to achieve a just and
correct outcome, and that such outcome be achieved in a timely manner noting that justice
delayed may amount to justice denied. In the context of mini-trials and huge procedural delays,
this creates a certain predicament in that mini-trials may not follow the apparatus of established
procedures but rather seek to achieve timely justice in attempting to resolve disputes quickly.
Adrian Zuckerman highlights this predicament to argue that in the current age, litigants would
most likely be willing to sacrifice procedure leading to a correct judgment - determined after
huge delays - in favour of a timely decision."' Until the problems of judicial backlog and
delay are ameliorated, the current manner in which hearings on interlocutory injunctions are
adjudicated in India is here to stay.
177 'Principles of Judicial Procedure' in John Bowring (ed), The Works of Jeremy Bentham (1st edn,
William Tait 1938-43) vol 2 <http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/bentham-the-works-of-jeremy-ben-
tham-vol-2> accessed 12 February 2017. See also Adrian Zuckerman, 'Quality and Economy in
Civil Procedure: The Case for Commuting Correct Judgments for Timely Judgments' (1994) 14
OJLS 353.
178 ibid.

4 Natl LUDelhi Stud LJ20

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Natl LUDelhi Stud LJ20

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Natl LUDelhi Stud LJ20

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DATE DOWNLOADED: Thu Apr 9 01:35:50 2020

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Bluebook 20th ed.

ALWD 6th ed.

APA 6th ed.

Chicago 7th ed.

McGill Guide 9th ed.

MLA 8th ed.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

The central argument of this paper is that our varied conceptions of a

II. A 'SERIOUS QUESTION TO BE TRIED', 'PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS' AND A

the other. In Walker v Jones, " Lord Justice Turner stated:

It is however to be remembered that the purpose sought to be achieved by

such a phenomenon by the House of Lords in American Cyanamid.

56 Stratford and Sons v Lindley [1965] AC 269.

profession' deeply ingrained in case law since 1884.66

In American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon,72 American Cyanamid contended that Ethicon

74 American Cyanamid (n 9) 406. See also Zuckerman (n 7) para 9.31.

89 R. v Secretary ofState for TransportExp. FactortameLtd (No.2) [1991] 1 AC 603.

The prejudice which the plaintiff may suffer if no injunction is granted or

American Cyanamid and Case Management

After understanding the historical background leading up to the decision in American

99 ibid. (Emphasis added)

Such trends were more conspicuous in intellectual property injunctions. In copyright

109 [1969] FSR 361.

injunction appeals and interfering with the discretion of the judge.

IV. AMERICAN CYANAMID IN INDIA

InDamodarValley Corporationv HaripadaDas,125 the Calcutta High Court rephrased the

124 Fellowes and Son (n 42).

In ColgatePalmolive (India)Ltdv HindustanLever,'32 the Supreme Court was considering

American Cyanamid cannot be understood as having laid down anything

V. THE PRESENT DAY UNDERSTANDING OF A 'PRIMA FACIE' CASE

At the outset, it is imperative to bring clarity to our understanding of 'mini-trials'. As we

The interpretation ofAmerican Cyanamidand Series 5 as placed by the Hon'ble Supreme

152 American Cyanamid (n 9) 406.

160 Laxmikant Patel v Chetanbhai (2002) 3 SCC 65, 75.

thereafter applied to ordinary injunction cases in M Gurudas v Rasaranjan.166 As a result,

166 M Gurudas (n 134) 376.

172 American Cyanamid (n 9) 409. See also Series 5 (n 133).

the grant of injunctions depending on the case at hand.

You might also like