Academic Session- 2023-24

DHARMASHASTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

Jabalpur (M.P.) 482001

Principles Governing the Grant of Temporary Injunction

Submitted by -

Manjari Agrawal

BALLB/121/21

Submitted to –

Dr. Praveen Tripathi

Associate Professor of Law

 Acknowledgement

I am extremely privileged to have this opportunity to thank my teachers under whose

guidance and assistance I was able to complete my project. All my work is possible
because of their selfless supervision of me.

I would like to thank the Vice-Chancellor of our university Prof. (Dr.) Shailesh N.
Hadli for his cooperative attitude towards every student of our university and to give
me an opportunity to gain knowledge and do creative assignments which will result in
the enhancement of my research skills.

With a deep sense of respect, I wholeheartedly thank Dr. Praveen Tripathi (Associate
Professor of Law) for providing this assignment and giving me all support and
guidance, which made me complete my project.

Sir provided me with the ideas and material so this project could be easy for me to do.
 Index

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 What is the authority of the court for granting temporary

injunction?

Chapter 3 What are the guiding principles for granting temporary

injunction?

Chapter 4 What are the consequences of breach of Temporary

Injunction?

Chapter 5 Conclusion
 Introduction

In the realm of civil law, the concept of an injunction stands as a formidable legal tool that empowers
courts to issue orders against one or more parties, either compelling them to refrain from certain
actions or, in less common instances, directing them to undertake specific acts. Among the diverse
array of injunctions that can be sought in a court of law, temporary injunctions occupy a pivotal
position. These injunctions are instrumental in altering or maintaining the "status quo" of a situation,
contingent upon the unique circumstances and grievances presented within a particular case. It is
imperative to recognize that the court does not necessarily grant all claims put forth by a petitioner
seeking a temporary injunction. Instead, the process of granting such an injunction is steeped in the
principles of equity and discretion, guided by the overarching objective of dispensing justice.

In essence, a temporary injunction serves as an equitable remedy, characterized as "a judicial process
that compels a party to refrain from doing or to do a particular act or thing." This legal instrument
acquires profound significance within the sphere of civil law, primarily due to its potential
ramifications. If an individual disobeys an order of injunction pronounced by a competent court,
severe penalties, including monetary fines and even imprisonment in certain circumstances, may be
imposed. The primary raison d'être behind the grant of interim relief is to preserve property under
dispute, ensuring that it remains intact until the legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties
involved in the litigation are thoroughly adjudicated. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that
injunctions can be subject to modification or dissolution if future circumstances undergo a substantial
transformation.

Within the legal framework of India, the concept of injunction is delineated by the Specific Relief Act
and the procedural nuances are elucidated by the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Temporary and
perpetual injunctions represent two of the most common types of injunctions. A permanent injunction
permanently restrains an individual from performing the act under question and is typically issued
following a final decision rendered in a hearing based on the merits of the case. On the other hand, a
temporary or interim injunction, as the name suggests, remains in effect only for a temporary period,
preserving the status quo until the case is conclusively resolved or until the court issues another order.

The procedural framework for the grant of injunctions, including temporary injunctions, is
meticulously outlined in the Civil Procedure Code, specifically under Sections 94 1 and 952, and Order
393. These provisions establish the rules and guidelines governing the issuance of injunctions, both ex

1
Section 94, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2
Section 95, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3
Order XXXIX, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No. 5 of 1908 (India).
parte ad interim and permanent. Moreover, Order 38 Rule 5 4 of the CPC pertains to interim measures,
setting a higher standard than merely establishing a prima facie case. To obtain interim relief under
this provision, the petitioner must demonstrate a prima facie case, establish the balance of
convenience, and showcase the urgent prospect of irreversible harm or injury, collectively referred to
as the "three parameters."

The process of granting a temporary injunction necessitates a comprehensive evaluation of various

factors, including the plaintiff's conduct, the prima facie averments, and supporting documents on
record. Additionally, the court must ascertain whether the party seeking relief approached the court
within a reasonable timeframe and whether they diligently pursued their rights. These considerations,
in conjunction with the three parameters, guide the court's decision to grant or deny the injunction.

In light of these complex legal intricacies, this assignment endeavours to explore the multifaceted
realm of temporary injunctions within the ambit of civil law. Delving deeper into the Specific Relief
Act and the Civil Procedure Code, we shall dissect the procedural intricacies, the standards for
granting temporary injunctions, and the legal principles that underpin this equitable remedy. By the
end of this assignment, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the nuanced aspects of
temporary injunctions in the Indian legal landscape.

4
Code of Civil Procedure, Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, 1908.
 What is the authority of the court for granting temporary
injunction?

In the realm of civil law, the authority of a court to grant temporary injunctions is a critical aspect of
ensuring that justice is served in disputes involving various forms of property and contractual matters.
Temporary injunctions are court orders that serve as a preventive measure to restrain a party from
engaging in certain actions pending the resolution of a dispute. These injunctions aim to preserve the
status quo and prevent irreparable harm during the litigation process. The authority to grant temporary
injunctions is regulated by specific provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC),
namely Section 94, and Order 39, Rules 15 and 26. This discussion will explore the authority vested in
the court to grant temporary injunctions, along with the relevant provisions and their interpretations,
shedding light on their significance in the legal landscape.

Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19087

Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in India pertains to the inherent powers of the court.
It provides the court with certain discretionary powers to make orders as may be necessary for the
ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. While it does not directly pertain to
temporary injunctions, Section 94 is a general provision that empowers the court to take action as it
deems fit in the interest of justice. This section is often invoked to issue temporary injunctions when
no specific provision under the CPC directly covers the circumstances at hand.

Section 94 of the CPC empowers the court with the authority to issue orders and grants inherent
powers to ensure the effective administration of justice. It is a versatile provision that allows the court
to act in the interest of justice and fill gaps in the procedural framework. While Section 94 does not
explicitly mention temporary injunctions, it provides the foundational authority upon which the court
relies when granting such injunctions.

Order 39, Rule 1: Cases in Which Temporary Injunction May Be Granted8

Where in any Suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise—

(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any
party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or

5
Order XXXIX, Rule 1 CPC 1908
6
Order XXXIX, Rule 2 CPC 1908
7
Section 94, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
8
Order XXXIX, Rule 1 CPC 1908
(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to
defrauding his creditors,

(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in
relation to any property in dispute in the suit,the court may by Order grant a temporary injunction to
restrain such act, or make such other Order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting,
damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or
otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the court
thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.

Order 39, Rule 1 serves as a crucial framework for the court's discretion in granting temporary
injunctions to preserve rights and prevent harm in civil disputes.

One significant situation pertains to property protection. If property faces imminent risk of damage,
alienation, or wrongful sale by any party involved in the lawsuit, the court can issue a temporary
injunction. This safeguards property integrity until the dispute's resolution. Another scenario involves
preventing fraud against creditors. If a defendant threatens to dispose of their property with the intent
to defraud creditors, the court can intervene with a temporary injunction. This ensures creditors'
legitimate claims are not undermined.

In cases where the plaintiff faces threats of dispossession or harm within property disputes, the court
may issue a temporary injunction, protecting the plaintiff's rights. Temporary injunctions can also be
granted when there's a risk of breach of peace or contract by the defendant, maintaining peace and
contractual obligations until resolution. Lastly, the court, guided by the catch-all provision, can grant a
temporary injunction in the interest of justice and equity, ensuring the right actions are taken to
preserve the parties' rights.

In summary, Order 39, Rule 1 provides a comprehensive framework for granting temporary
injunctions, allowing the court to swiftly and effectively prevent harm, maintain peace, and uphold
justice in civil proceedings.

Order 39, Rule 2: Injunction to Restrain Repetition or Continuance of Breach9

(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of
any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the
commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the court for a temporary
injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of,

9
Order XXXIX, Rule 2 CPC 1908
or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the
same property or right.

(2) The court may by Order grant such injunction, on such terms, as to the duration of the injunction,
keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the court thinks fit.

Order 39, Rule 2 is a vital provision in civil procedure, granting the court the authority to issue
injunctions to prevent the defendant from breaching a contract or causing injury, irrespective of
whether compensation is sought in the lawsuit. This rule empowers the plaintiff to seek a temporary
injunction at any stage of the suit, whether it be before or after judgment.

The significance of these rules is multifaceted. Firstly, they serve as a safeguard to protect property
from being wasted, damaged, alienated, or fraudulently sold (Rule 1(a) and (b)). This protection is
essential to prevent irreversible harm during the legal dispute. Additionally, the rules ensure the
protection of creditors by allowing injunctions against individuals attempting to defraud them (Rule
1(b)). This prevents debtors from disposing of their assets to evade financial obligations.

In property disputes, Rule 1(c) is instrumental in preventing the unjust dispossession or injury of the
plaintiff by the defendant. This maintains the status quo during legal proceedings. Moreover, the rules
address breaches of contract (Rule 2), upholding the integrity of contracts and preventing parties from
violating their contractual obligations. Lastly, the provision allowing intervention based on the
"interest of justice" (Rule 1(e)) underscores the court's discretion to act when justice necessitates such
intervention, exercised judiciously to ensure fairness in the proceedings.

Manohar Lai v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, MANU/SC/0056/1961 : AIR 1962 SC 527:
(1962) Supp 1 SCR 45010

In this case, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of Order 39, Rule 1(c), which allows the
court to grant an injunction when the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause
injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute. The Court upheld the significance of this
provision in protecting the rights of the plaintiff and preventing unjust dispossession during the course
of a legal proceeding.

Kashinath Sansthan v. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy, MANU/SC/1852/2009 : AIR 2010 SC

29611

10
Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 17
11
Kashinath Sansthan v. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy, MANU/SC/1852/2009, AIR 2010 SC 296.
“In order to grant an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove
that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his
favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. But it is equally well-
settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the
balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at
all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to the court
to grant injunction in his favour even if he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his
favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction is granted.”

In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the criteria for granting a temporary injunction, emphasizing
that the party seeking the injunction must establish a prima facie case to proceed to trial. This case
underscores the importance of a strong legal basis for the grant of a temporary injunction.

The authority of the court to grant temporary injunctions is firmly rooted in the provisions of Section
94 and Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These provisions provide the
necessary framework for the court to exercise its discretion in granting injunctions to prevent
irreparable harm, protect property, uphold contractual obligations, and serve the interest of justice.
Through the interpretations and applications of these provisions in various case law, it becomes
evident that the court's authority to grant temporary injunctions plays a pivotal role in the equitable
dispensation of justice in civil matters.
 What are the guiding principles for granting temporary
injunction?

In the landmark judgment of Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. vs. Coca-Cola Co.12 (AIR 1995 SC 2372),
the Supreme Court established essential guidelines for courts to follow when considering applications
for granting temporary injunctions. It emphasized a Triple Test, requiring the court to evaluate

(i) Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case;

(ii) Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and
(iii) Whether the pliantiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injuction
is disallowed.

This Triple Test approach was reaffirmed in subsequent cases like M/s Transmission Corporation of
A.P. Ltd. vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power Pvt. Ltd. 13 (2006) 1 SCC 540 and M. Gurudas & Ors
vs. Rasaranjan & Ors14 (AIR 2006 SC 3275), emphasizing the importance of these criteria in the
exercise of judicial discretion when deciding on temporary injunctions.

1. Prima Facie Case

In the realm of civil litigation, the concept of temporary injunction plays a pivotal role in safeguarding
the rights and interests of parties involved in disputes. At the heart of the decision to grant a temporary
injunction lies the principle of prima facie case, which constitutes the foundational pillar upon which
the grant of this equitable relief is based. This article delves into the significance of the prima facie
principle in temporary injunction, drawing insights from relevant legal principles and case law.

The term "prima facie" is of Latin origin and translates to "at first sight" or "based on first
impression." In the context of temporary injunctions, it signifies the presentation of evidence and
arguments by the applicant or plaintiff that reasonably allows for the inference that their case is
meritorious and warrants protection through an injunction. Importantly, a prima facie case does not
demand irrefutable proof but requires that the case presented is strong enough not to be summarily
dismissed.

The landmark case of Martin Burn Ltd vs. R.N.Banerjee 15 (1958 AIR 79 SCR 514) provides a
comprehensive elucidation of the prima facie principle. The Supreme Court held that a prima facie
case does not require the case to be proven conclusively but rather establishes that the case could be
12
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca-Cola Co., AIR 1995 SC 2372.
13
M/s Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. v. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power Pvt. Ltd., 1 S.C.C. 540 (2006).
14
M. Gurudas & Ors v. Rasaranjan & Ors, AIR 2006 SC 3275
15
Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee, 1958 AIR 79, 514 (S.C. India).
considered established if the evidence presented in support of it were believed. It does not delve into
the complexities of fact and law that call for in-depth arguments but seeks to determine if there exists
a bona fide dispute necessitating further investigation.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that for a prima facie case to hold, the applicant or plaintiff must
approach the court with clean hands. Any suppression of material facts or evidence can jeopardize the
claim for a temporary injunction, rendering the applicant ineligible for this relief. Therefore, the
principle of bona fide dispute is integral to the prima facie case.

The Prima Facie Principle in Action:

The principle of prima facie case plays a pivotal role in the issuance of temporary injunctions, serving
as a crucial threshold for the applicant. To secure a temporary injunction, the applicant must first
establish a prima facie case, indicating a reasonable chance of success based on the evidence
presented. While conclusive proof is not required, a strong and credible case must be made. Moreover,
maintaining transparency and honesty is essential when invoking the prima facie principle. Parties
seeking a temporary injunction must come forward with all relevant facts and evidence, as
suppressing material information can weaken their case and potentially lead to the application's
dismissal.

Furthermore, the prima facie principle safeguards genuine disputes, ensuring that parties have a fair
opportunity to have their claims heard and evaluated by the court. It prevents premature dismissals
and enables a thorough examination of the case's merits. Additionally, temporary injunctions may be
granted to preserve the status quo during the dispute's resolution. This prevents either party from
gaining an unfair advantage while the case is pending, promoting a fair and just legal process.
Ultimately, the prima facie principle serves to prevent injustice by allowing parties with valid claims
to seek interim protection through temporary injunctions. It strikes a balance between safeguarding the
applicant's rights and upholding the integrity of the legal system.

In summary, the principle of prima facie case is a fundamental element in the grant of temporary
injunctions. It requires the applicant or plaintiff to present a strong and bona fide case, supported by
evidence, to justify the court's intervention. This principle ensures that parties with legitimate claims
are not denied the opportunity to seek interim relief while their disputes are being adjudicated, thereby
upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the legal system.

2. Irreparable Loss

The principle of irreparable injury is a crucial element in the consideration of granting temporary
injunctions. Irreparable injury refers to harm or damage that cannot be adequately compensated
through monetary means or any other form of remedy, and it plays a significant role in the court's
decision-making process when evaluating whether to grant an injunction. This principle is central to
ensuring that parties seeking an injunction genuinely require protection from potential harm that
would otherwise be difficult or impossible to rectify.

Irreparable injury is not an absolute concept that suggests there can be no physical means of repairing
the damage. Rather, it signifies an injury of such a substantial nature that it cannot be adequately
compensated through the payment of damages or any other form of restitution. The essence of
irreparable injury lies in the fact that it is a harm that goes beyond the scope of monetary valuation or
conventional remedies available in the legal system.

The Supreme Court of India, in various judgments, has elucidated the significance of irreparable
injury as a critical factor in determining the grant of temporary injunctions.

Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi16 (03.11.2003): In this case, the court emphasized the role
of irreparable injury as one of the three pillars, along with the prima facie case and the balance of
convenience, upon which the foundation of any order of injunction rests. The court's opinion on the
availability of these factors is crucial when deciding on an application for the grant of an interim
injunction.

Best Sellers Retail India (P) Ltd. vs. Aditya Nirla Nuvo Ltd.17 (2012) 6 SCC 792: “Yet, the settled
principle of law is that even where prima facie case is in favour of the plaintiff, the Court will refuse
temporary injunction if the injury suffered by the plaintiff on account of refusal of temporary
injunction was not irreparable.”

The Supreme Court reiterates that a prima facie case, while essential, is not the sole criterion for
granting an injunction. Even if a prima facie case is in favor of the plaintiff, the court will refuse a
temporary injunction if the injury suffered by the plaintiff, due to the denial of the injunction, is not
truly irreparable.

The principle of irreparable injury is a fundamental component of the criteria for granting temporary
injunctions. It ensures that parties seeking injunctions are genuinely in need of protection from harm
that cannot be sufficiently remedied through monetary compensation or other available remedies. The
courts, guided by this principle, exercise their judicial discretion to determine whether the
circumstances warrant the granting of an interim injunction. Irreparable injury, alongside the prima
facie case and the balance of convenience, forms the bedrock upon which decisions regarding
injunctions are made, serving the interests of justice and equity in legal proceedings.
16
Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi, (2004) 1 SCC 438
17
Best Sellers Retail India (P) Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., 6 S.C.C. 792 (2012).
 3. Balance of convenience

The principle of the balance of convenience is a crucial aspect of the evaluation process for granting
temporary injunctions. This principle requires the court to weigh the comparative levels of mischief,
hardship, or inconvenience that may be caused to the parties involved in the case. The essence of this
principle lies in determining whether it is more advantageous to grant the injunction, preserving the
status quo, or to refuse it, thereby maintaining the current situation until the legal dispute is resolved.

The balance of convenience comes into play when there is uncertainty regarding the adequacy of
remedies available in terms of damages to either or both parties. It does not suggest that the balance
should favor one party over the other; instead, it necessitates a fair and equitable evaluation of the
situation, taking into account the potential consequences of granting or refusing the injunction.

Bikash Chandra Deb vs. Vijaya Minerals Pvt. Ltd.18 (2005 1 CHN 582): The Calcutta High Court
emphasized that while considering the issue of the balance of convenience, the court should adopt an
overview that ensures a proper equilibrium between the parties. It should not be a one-sided affair, and
the court should strive to strike a fair balance.

Anwar Elahi vs. Vinod Misra And Anr.19 (1995 IVAD Delhi 576): This Delhi High Court case
defined the balance of convenience as comparative mischief or inconvenience. It suggests that the
court should assess whether withholding the injunction would result in greater harm than granting it.
The court's task is to consider the substantial mischief likely to befall the applicant if the injunction is
refused and compare it with the harm the other side may suffer if the injunction is granted.

The Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh20: This Supreme Court judgment discussed the
legal interpretation of the balance of convenience principle. It emphasized that the balance of
convenience must favor granting the injunction. The court should exercise sound judicial discretion to
assess the substantial harm or injury likely to befall the parties if the injunction is refused and compare
it with the harm that might result if the injunction is granted. If, upon weighing these competing
possibilities, the court believes that maintaining the status quo is necessary pending the resolution of
the suit, it may grant the injunction.

The application of the balance of convenience principle involves a careful evaluation of the specific
circumstances of each case. The court's role is to assess whether it is more advantageous to grant the
injunction to prevent potential harm or to deny it to avoid disrupting the existing situation. Key factors
that courts consider when applying this principle include:

18
Bikash Chandra Deb v. Vijaya Minerals Pvt. Ltd., 2005 1 CHN 582
19
Anwar Elahi v. Vinod Misra and Another, 1995 IVAD Delhi 576.
20
Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719
1. Likelihood of Harm: The court evaluates the likelihood of harm that may befall the parties if the
injunction is not granted. This assessment considers both tangible and intangible harm, such as
financial loss, reputational damage, or other adverse consequences.

2. Availability of Remedies: The court considers whether there are adequate remedies available in the
form of damages or other legal actions that can address the harm suffered by the parties. If such
remedies are insufficient, the balance may tilt in favor of granting the injunction.

3. Equity and Fairness: The court ensures that its decision aligns with principles of equity and
fairness. It aims to strike a balance that prevents unjust or disproportionate harm to either party.

4. Status Quo Preservation: Maintaining the status quo, which often involves granting the injunction,
is considered when it is necessary to avoid significant and irreversible changes pending the resolution
of the legal dispute.

The balance of convenience principle is a critical element in the determination of whether to grant
temporary injunctions. It requires the court to carefully weigh the potential harm and hardship that
may befall the parties involved and assess whether maintaining the status quo through the injunction is
more equitable and justifiable than refusing it. The court's exercise of sound judicial discretion ensures
that the interests of justice and fairness are upheld in legal proceedings. By considering the balance of
convenience alongside other factors, such as the prima facie case and irreparable injury, the court
strives to make decisions that serve the best interests of all parties involved.
What are the consequences of breach of Temporary Injunction?

Temporary injunctions are powerful legal tools used by courts to maintain the status quo during
ongoing litigation. These injunctions are issued to prevent a party from taking certain actions or to
preserve specific rights until the court reaches a final decision in the case. Breaching a temporary
injunction carries significant consequences, reflecting the importance of upholding the sanctity of
court orders.

Consequences of Breach of Temporary Injunction

1. Attachment of Property: One of the primary consequences of breaching a temporary injunction is

the court's authority to order the attachment of the wrongdoer's property. In cases where a party
willfully violates the injunction order, the court may initiate proceedings to attach their assets. This
measure is taken to prevent the wrongdoer from benefiting from their actions in violation of the
court's order.

2. Detention in Civil Prison: Alongside property attachment, the court also has the power to detain
the wrongdoer in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months. This detention serves as a
punitive measure and emphasizes the seriousness of breaching a court-issued injunction. The court
uses this tool to ensure that parties comply with its orders and do not undermine the legal process.

3. Sale of Attached Property: Temporary injunctions may remain in force for a limited period,
typically one year. If the party in breach continues their defiance, the court may order the sale of the
attached property. The proceeds from the sale are used to compensate the injured party, and any
balance is returned to the rightful owner. This step aims to enforce compliance with court orders and
compensate those who have suffered due to the breach.

In the case of Satyabrata Biswas vs. Kalyan Kumar Kisku21, the Supreme Court held that any act
done in violation of a court's order of status quo is clearly illegal. It declared such actions and any
resulting transactions as illegal and nullified.

In the case of Surjit Singh & Ors. vs. Harbans Singh & Ors.22, the Supreme Court emphasized that
actions taken in defiance of a restraint order or injunction order are illegal and must be treated as
having no legal effect. This principle aims to deter parties from flouting court orders and reinforces
the importance of upholding injunctions.

21
Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku, (1994) 2 SCC 266
22
Surjit Singh v. Harbans Singh, (1995) 6 SCC 50
Breach of a temporary injunction is a serious matter that carries significant consequences. Courts issue
injunctions to maintain fairness, prevent irreparable harm, and ensure that parties involved in litigation
respect the legal process. When a party willfully disobeys a court order, it not only faces the
attachment of its property and potential detention in civil prison but also risks the nullification of
transactions or actions taken in violation of the injunction. These consequences underscore the
importance of upholding the sanctity of court orders and the rule of law. Courts have the authority and
responsibility to enforce their injunctions, protect the rights of parties, and maintain the integrity of
the legal process. Parties involved in litigation should approach the court with respect and adhere to its
orders, thereby contributing to the fair and just resolution of disputes.

Breach of Injunction different from Contempt of Court

Contempt of court constitutes an offense characterized by displaying disrespect or disregard for the
dignity and authority of a court of law. The legal provisions governing contempt are outlined in both
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Contempt proceedings are
fundamentally based on the principle that deliberate acts of disobedience inevitably lead to punitive
actions. These contempt-related provisions serve a corrective purpose, ensuring the enforcement of
court directions and orders, addressing disobedience of orders, and reinstating the status quo as
required.

Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Code of Civil Procedure, 190823—

“Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.—

(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule
2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the
Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or
proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or
breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a
term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.”

Order XXI Rule 32(1), Code of Civil Procedure, 190824—

“Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution
of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the
decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for

23
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rule 2A.
24
Order XXI Rule 32(1), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the
specific performance of a contract or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the
attachment of his property, or by both.”

Section 2(a), The Contempt of Courts Act, 197125— ““contempt of court” means civil contempt or
criminal contempt”

Section 2(b), The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 26— ““civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to
any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an
undertaking given to a court”

Section 12, The Contempt of Courts Act, 197127 provides for the “Punishment for contempt of court”.

Whatman International Limited v. P. Mehta & Ors. [(2019) 257 DLT 472]28

“The disobedience or breach of an injunction has to have consequences in law. If strict action is not

taken, orders of Courts would not be complied with by litigants, as is evident in the present case. Such

disobedience not only constitutes violation of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A but also

constitutes contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The conduct of the Defendants in the

present case is in the face of the Court and thus Section 14 of the Act is clearly attracted.”

Om Prakash v. Omwati & Ors.29 [CONT. CAS (C) 512/2017 OM CM APPL. 26032/2017, Delhi
High Court, March 16, 2017]

“The provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC not only deal with a situation where an injunction order
has been passed by the civil court but it also deals and contemplates to deal with a situation where
an order passed by the court, of which there is alleged to be willful disobedience, can be dealt with.

The only difference between the provisions under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and the power of the court
to punish for contempt under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is the
quantum of incarceration which a person can be sentenced to. Under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, a person can be sentenced for a period of six months, while under the provisions of Order 39
Rule 2A CPC, he can be sentenced to only three months apart from the fine component under both the
25
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(a)
26
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(b)
27
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 12
28
Whatman International Limited v. P. Mehta & Ors., (2019) 257 DLT 472.
29
Om Prakash v. Omwati & Ors., CONT. CAS (C) 512/2017, 26032/2017 (Delhi High Ct. Mar. 16, 2017).
provisions…there is ample mechanism prescribed under the CPC for the purpose of implementation
of an order.

The contempt power under the Contempt of Courts Act is not only discretionary but is also to be used
sparingly. A trend which has been noticed by this court is that parties invariably try to invoke the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act in order to get orders implemented while there is machinery
provided under the CPC for the purpose of getting orders, decrees or directions executed.”

Indu Tewari v. Ram Bahadur Chaudhari and Ors.30 [AIR 1981 All 309]

“The orders passed in proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A as well as the orders passed in
execution proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure are appealable
orders. Further the proceedings under Order XXXIX. Rule 2-A as well as execution proceedings
under Order XXI, Rule 32 are elaborate proceedings in which the parties can adduce their evidence
and they can examine and cross-examine the witnesses. As opposed to this, the proceedings under the
Contempt of Courts Act are of summary nature.”

…a person who has got an effective alternative remedy of the nature specified under Order XXXIX,
Rule 2-A or under Order XXI. Rule 32, Civil P. C. should not be permitted to skip over that remedy
and take resort to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, it would not be a proper
exercise of discretion on the part of this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under the Contempt of
Courts Act when such an effective and alternative remedy is available to any person.”

Jagdishbhai Madhubhai Patel v. Saraswatiben Wd/O Asharam31 [(2020) 1 GLR 304]

“It becomes crystal clear that the proceedings are analogous to the contempt of court proceedings
but they are taken under the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code for the reason that the
special provision inserted in the Code shall prevail over the general law of contempt contained in
the, contempt of court act . Even the High Court, in such a case, shall not entertain the petition
under the provisions of Act”

A substantial backlog of civil and criminal contempt cases is pending in various Indian High Courts
and the Supreme Court, leading to conflicting judgments and prolonged legal disputes. Rule 2A of
Order 39 of the Code serves the dual purpose of penalizing those who disobey injunction orders and
ensuring the enforcement of such orders, representing a comprehensive provision. The provisions
related to contempt primarily aim to uphold the authority of judicial orders, preserve the rule of law,
and foster litigants' confidence in the justice system. In contempt proceedings, the burden of proof for

30
Indu Tewari v. Ram Bahadur Chaudhari and Ors., AIR 1981 All 309
31
Jagdishbhai Madhubhai Patel v. Saraswatiben Wd/O Asharam, (2020) 1 GLR 304.
alleging disobedience lies heavily on the accuser, requiring them to establish the offense's elements
beyond a reasonable doubt. It's essential to recognize that when an order is issued under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the appropriate recourse is under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC, rendering
contempt petitions under other provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, inapplicable. It is
emphasized that not every decree-holder should rush to the High Court merely on the grounds of
disobedience of a subordinate Court's decree, as this doesn't align with the purpose of the Contempt of
Courts Act.
 Conclusion

In the intricate realm of civil litigation and legal remedies, the concept of temporary injunction stands
as a vital instrument for maintaining the balance of justice. It is a legal order that temporarily restrains
a party from performing a particular action, preserving the status quo until the underlying dispute is
resolved through a comprehensive judicial process. Throughout this discussion, we have delved into
the multifaceted facets of temporary injunctions, exploring their significance, conditions, principles,
consequences, and differences from contempt of court. As we conclude this exploration, it is evident
that temporary injunctions serve as indispensable tools in the realm of civil law, bridging the gap
between a party's need for immediate protection and the final resolution of their legal dispute.

One of the foundational principles governing the issuance of temporary injunctions is the "prima
facie" principle. This principle necessitates that the party seeking an injunction establishes a
reasonable probability of success, presenting a strong and credible case. While it does not demand
conclusive proof, it acts as a crucial threshold for intervention by the court. This principle serves as a
safeguard, preventing hasty dismissals of claims and ensuring that bona fide disputes are protected. By
preserving the status quo, temporary injunctions prevent any party from gaining an undue advantage
while litigation is ongoing, thereby maintaining fairness and justice in the legal process.

The conditions for granting temporary injunctions are strict and well-defined. The applicant must
demonstrate the existence of irreparable harm, inadequacy of other remedies, the balance of
convenience in their favor, and a prima facie case. This careful consideration of these conditions by
the court reflects the delicate equilibrium temporary injunctions seek to maintain between the rights of
the applicant and the integrity of the legal system.

The consequences of disobedience to a temporary injunction are severe, aiming to enforce the court's
order and ensure compliance. This may involve the attachment of property, detention in civil prison,
and the potential sale of attached property. These measures underscore the significance of respecting
court orders and the rule of law.

Distinguishing between contempt of court and breach of temporary injunction is crucial. Contempt of
court is an offense that disrespects the authority of the court itself, while breach of temporary
injunction pertains to disobeying a specific court order. Understanding this distinction is essential for
upholding the majesty of judicial orders, preserving the rule of law, and instilling faith in litigants
regarding the administration of justice.

In India, as in many jurisdictions, there exist significant challenges associated with the backlog of
contempt cases. Conflicting judgments across various High Courts have led to misunderstandings and
protracted litigation. However, the provisions related to contempt primarily aim to ensure the
implementation of court orders, the remedy of disobedience, and the restoration of the status quo.
These provisions are intended to maintain the majesty of judicial orders, preserve the rule of law, and
instill faith in the administration of justice.

In conclusion, temporary injunctions are powerful legal tools that play a pivotal role in the realm of
civil law. They provide immediate protection to parties in need, balance competing interests, and
ensure fairness in the judicial process. However, their issuance is subject to strict conditions, and their
violation carries severe consequences. Understanding the prima facie principle, the distinctions
between contempt and breach, and the challenges posed by backlog are essential in navigating the
complexities of temporary injunctions. Ultimately, these legal instruments serve as a testament to the
judiciary's commitment to upholding justice and the rule of law.