ANJUMAN ISLAM BARRISTER A R ANTULAY COLLEGE OF LAW

STUDENT NAME:- KARUNA DURGESH SHIRDHANKAR

SUBJECT:- GRANT OR REFUSAL OF INJUCTION

ROLL NO. 50

DIVISION :-A

[Link]

PROF. NAME: AAFREEN SHAIKH

1|Page
List of abbreviations used:

1. Vs- Verses

List of Cases Referred:

1. L.D. Mestone School vs. Kashi Nath Mishra (1951)
2. Pepsi Foods vs Jai Drinks (P) Ltd. on 4 March, 1996
3. Interkardio Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gyrus Group PLC
4. Inox Leisure Limited v. PVR Limited (2020)
5. Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh : (2013) 2 SCC 398
6. Jayant Nath v. Saligram Ltd. between the two. :- (2021) SCC Online Del 561
7. Overnite Express Limited vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
8. Lalbhai Dalpatbhai & Co. vs Chittaranjan Chandulal Pandya on 14 April,
1965
9. Ram Kishun v. Jamuna Prasad, (1951) 6 DLR 22 (Pat)
10. Bruce v. Silvaraj, (1987) Supp SCC 161

INDEX

SR NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

2|Page
1. Introduction 4 to 5

2. Meaning 6 to 7

3. Definition 8 to 8

3. Essential Elements and Illustration of Injunctions 9 to 17

4. Case Laws 18 to 22

5. Conclusion 23 to 24

6. References 25 to 25

INTRODUCTION

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963

3|Page
When a party suffers loss and damages due to the acts of another party as a result of which
the contract is breached, it has to be remedies by specific acts. These specific acts or reliefs
are given under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which deals with certain remedies in these
situations.

Whenever two people enter into the contract, it binds both of them by obligations and duties.
Both parties as required to perform their parts of the contracts diligently and enjoy the rights.
But where the contract is breached or not performed by any party, the other party is entitled
to seek relief for the damages incurred due to the non- performance of the contract by another
party. The term “Specific Performance’ used under the Act, itself suggests its own meaning.

It means to specifically perform an act in terms of contract and directs the parties to
specifically perform their obligations as mentioned therein and thus fulfil the terms and
conditions of contracts.

SPECIFIC RELIEF

Section 4 grants special relief for the enforcement of individual rights and not for imposing
penal laws. The enforcement under this Acts only basis itself on the individual civil right and
the substantive nature must be established for that fact. To be understood in a similar way
specific relief is related to providing relief for the infringed civil rights of the individual. Its
main objective is to focus the rights and if there is any penal nature of the case, it may have to
be established for proving the same.

INJUNCTION

An injunction is a remedy granted by the court that prohibits the commission of a wrong
threatened or the continuance of a wrongful course of action already begun.

4|Page
If a party fails to comply with an injunction granted by a court, then the party could face
criminal or civil penalties or contempt of court.

For example:-

The law of injection has been provided for by the specific Relief Act, 1963 and is also
regulated by the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in India.

A hearing must be held to obtain an injunction. In emergencies, a court can issue a temporary
restraining order that prohibits or requires action without notice to the non-moving party.
These emergency orders are much more limited in duration than injunctions, which require
notice. To obtain an injunction, the Court will require the moving party to give security to
safeguard against a wrongful injunction being entered. This security can be paid into the
Court in cash, or the moving party can obtain a bond or some other form of financial security
to protect the non-moving party. A permanent injunction is typically only entered after a trial
on the merits.

Footnote:

[Link]

MEANING OF INJUNCTION:-

When irreparable damage is suffered by an individual from the actions of other individual
and the same cannot be remedied through any other means, there is a need for injunctions in
order to stop that other individual from doing those certain actions.

5|Page
Disobedience of an injunction is punishable as contempt of court.

 It is used as a preventive measure by restricting the one who creates a nuisance for
others.
 It can only be issued against defendant and not a stranger to the case or third party as
has been held in the case of L.D. Mestone School vs. kashi Nath (1951)

Courts will generally not issue injunctions in cases where only money is at issue. Courts
take the view that money damages can be awarded after a full trial on the merits.
Injunctions are used only to prevent irreparable harm or “harm which cannot be
compensated for through damages upon resolution of the underlying action.

Generally speaking,

There are two types of injections under Act as mentioned below:

Types of Injuctions

Temporary Injunctions Perpetual Injunction

The Specific Relief Act of 1963, an Act to define and amend the law relating to certain
kinds of specific relief, includes sections on injunctions:

Section 37 Temporary and perpetual injunctions

6|Page
 Section 38: When a perpetual injunction is granted

Section 39: Mandatory injunctions

Section 40: Damages in lieu of, or in addition to, injunction

Section 41: Grounds for refusal to grant injuctions

Section 42: Injunction to perform negative agreement

Footnote:-

[Link]

Definition of the Injunction

Definition.-

An injunction is a specific order of the court forbidding the commission of a wrong

threatened or the continuance of a wrongful course of action already begun, or in

7|Page
 some cases, when it is called mandatory injunction commanding active restitution of
the former state of things.

 Barney's Encyclopaedia of the law of England.- It is defined as a judicial process

by which one, who has invaded or is threatening to invade the rights (Legal or
equitable) of another, is restrained from continuing or commencing such wrongful act.
 Lord Halsbury.-

An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is ordered to refrain from doing or

to do a particular act or thing.

Story says.-

If one were disposed to be scrupulously critical on such a subject, he might

object to the apparent contract between justice in the first part of the sentence
and equity and good conscience in the latter. This truth is that in this
connection the words have the same identical meaning.

 Joyce.-

"An order remedial, the general purpose of which is to restrain the commission or
continuance of some wrongful act of the party informed."

Injunction acts in personal. It does not run with the property.

For example:-.

A, plaintiff secures an injunction against B forbidding him to erect a wall. A sells the
property to C. The sale does carry the injunction with the property.

An injunction may be issued for and against individuals, public bodies or even the
state. Disobedience of an injunction is punishable as contempt of court.

Essential elements and Illustrations of Injunctions

Courts will generally not issue injunctions in cases where only money is at issue. Courts take
the view that money damages can be awarded after a full trial on the merits. Injunctions are
used only to prevent irreparable harm or “harm which cannot be compensated for through

8|Page
damages upon resolution of the underlying action.”Coates v. Heat Wagons, Inc., 942 N.E.2d
905, 912 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

Even when a legal remedy is possible, the trial court should award injunctive relief “where a
legal remedy will be inadequate because it provides incomplete relief or relief that is
inefficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration.” Id. In other words, injunctive
relief is proper when it is “more practical, efficient, or adequate than that afforded by
law.”Barlow v. Spies, 744 N.E.2d 1,

Characteristics of Injunction:-

1 It is a judicial process,

2 the relief obtained thereby is a restraint or prevention, and

3 the act prevented or restrained is unlawful

Injunction will not be Issued in following cases:-

1. Where damages are the appropriate relief,

2. Where injunction is not the appropriate relief,

3. Where the plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction on account of his conduct.

4. Where contract cannot be specifically enforced.

5. Where injunction would operate inequitably.

Footnote:-

ttps://[Link]/high-court-of-delhi-an-injunction-against-contractual-
relations-of-two-parties-in-absence-of-law-would-violate-article-195-of-the-
constitution-of-india/

Section 36. Preventive relief how granted.-

Preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or

perpetual.

What is preventive relief.-

9|Page
 Preventive relief is said to be such a relief by which a person is prevented to do an
act, which he is not validly liable to do.

For example:- A is constructing a wall in B's land. At the suit of B by providing him
preventive relief A can be prohibited to do so because A is not legally liable to do so.
Thus when the court prevents a party from doing that which he is under an obligation
not to do it is called preventive relief. Such relief is usually granted to prevent breach
of contract or the violation of right arising otherwise than by contract.

The object of issuing an injunction, it should be noted is usually preventive. Through

preventive injunction, a party is ordered to restrain from doing a wrongful act or thing
which he is under an obligation not to do.

Executive Committee of Vaishya Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi

Narain, MANU/SC/0052/1979 : AIR 1976 SC 888:

 The relief of injunction cannot be granted or obtained as of right. The granting

of relief of injunction is discretionary.
 The relief has to be granted by the court according to sound legal principles
and ex debilo justitiae.

Footnote:

[Link]

Section 37. Temporary and perpetual injunction.

(1) Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specified time, or until
the further order of the court and they may be granted at any stage of a suit, and are
regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).

10 | P a g e
 (2) A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing
and upon the merits of the suit, the defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the
assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the
rights of the plaintiff.

Temporary or interlocutory injunction are to continue temporarily either until a

specified time or until further order of the court. It is only provisional in nature.

Ram Kishun v. Jamuna Prasad, (1951) 6 DLR 22 (Pat): There may be an order to
preserve the property until the final hearing of the case. The object may be to maintain
status quo. So that the alleged harm is avoided, which could otherwise occur until the
case is finally disposed of by the court on merits.

Bruce v. Silvaraj, (1987) Supp SCC 161: A person filing a suit for injunction can
succeed only when he is in possession of the property. If he is not in possession of the
property, or adverse possession has not been confirmed an injunction cannot be issued
in his favour.

Kallappa and Lunda Ram v. Shivappa Aparaj, MANU/KA/0042/1995 : AIR

1995 Kant 238 (243): Where the plaintiff is in possession of the property and the
possession is not illegal and that there is no evidence that the possession before the
suit has been obtained by unfair means, injunction, without declaration can be issued.

Section 38. Perpetual injunction when granted.-

(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this chapter, a
perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an
obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.

11 | P a g e
 (2) when any such obligation arise from contract, the court shall be guided by the
rules and provisions contained in chapter II.

(3) when the defendant invades or threaten to invade the plaintiff's right to or
enjoyment of property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following
cases, namely,-

(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff.

(b) where there exist no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or
likely to be caused, by the invasion,

(c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford
adequate relief,

(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial

proceedings.
Illustration:-

1. 1. A lets certain land to B, and B contracts not to dig sand or gravel there-out. A may
sue for injunction to restrain B from digging in violation of his contract.
2. The director of a public company are about to pay a dividend out of capital or
borrowed money. Any of the shareholders may sue for an injunction to restrain them.
3. A, B and C partners, the partnership being determinable at Will. A threatens to do an
act tending to the destruction of the partnership property. B and C may, without
seeking a dissolution of the partnership, sue for an injunction to restrain A from doing
the Act.

Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash, MANU/SC/0521/1988 : AIR 1988 SC 576:

The Supreme Court observed that a suit for permanent injunction by a coparcener
against the father for restraining him from alienating the house property belonging to
the joint Hindu family for legal necessity was not maintainable because the
coparceners has got the remedy challenging the sale and getting it set aside in a suit
subsequent to the completion of the sale.

Mandatory injunctions
Section 39 of the Special Relief Act, 1963 deals with the Mandatory Injunction. The

12 | P a g e
 section doesn't clearly define a mandatory injunction but deals with the grant of a
mandatory injunction.

The section says that in order to prevent the breach of an obligation, the court can
compel the performance of certain actions at its discretion, which it is capable of
enforcing and can issue injunctions for the infringement complained of. The principle of
mandatory injunction is used to grant final relief and not interim reliefs, like in
exceptional or exemplary cases like saving life, etc. There are essentially two conditions
requested for mandatory injunctions:

(a) the defendant must be obliged to perform an act and any such breach of the obliged
act must be claimed by the plaintiff;

(b) the reliefs, as asked for, must be enforceable by the court. The principle says that
the defendant must do a positive act in order to restore the wrongful act committed by
him.
Illustration:-

1. A builds a house with eaves projecting over B's land B may sue for an injunction to pull
down so much of the eaves as so project.

2. A threatens to publish statements concerning B which would be punishable under

chapter XXI of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court may grant an injunction to restrain
the publication, even though it may be shown not be injurious to restrain the publication.

3. A is B's medical advisor. He demands money of B which B declines to pay. A then

threatens to make known the effects of B's communications to him as a patient. B may
sue for an injunction to restrain him from so doing. The court may also order A's letter to
be destroyed.

In Oorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990), the Supreme Court held that:

1. The complainant must present a strong case in the court and it should be of a level
13 | P a g e
 higher than that of the prima facie case;

2. The plaintiff must make it clear that the grant of a mandatory injuction is obligatory to
prevent irreparable damage or serious injury which cannot be compensated in terms of
money and,

3. The balance of convenience should also be in favour of the complainant as against the
defendant.

Footnote:-

[Link]
two-parties-in-absence-of-law-would-violate-article-195-of-the-constitution-of-india/

Damages in lieu of, or in addition to, injunction

Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specifically talks about the damages or
14 | P a g e
 compensation that can be given by the courts in lieu of or in addition to the injunction.
The Section states that:

(1) In a claim for a perpetual injunction pursuant to Section 38 or for a mandatory

injunction pursuant to Section 39, the plaintiff may claim damages in addition to
or in substitution for such injunction, and the court may, if it considers it
appropriate, award such damages.

(2) No compensation under this provision shall be granted unless the claimant
requests such relief in the plaint. Provided that where no such damages have
been asserted in the plaint, the court shall, at any point of the trial, which may be
just and fair for that argument, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint.

(3) The dismissal of a claim to avoid the breach of a contract existing in favor of the
plaintiff shall preclude his right to sue for damages for such infringement.

Footnote

[Link]

Grounds for refusal to grant injuctions

15 | P a g e
 Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, mentions those cases wherein the
Court cannot grant an injunction. An injunction cannot be granted in the following
cases:

 To stop any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the

institution of the suit of injunction. However, it does not cover a scenario
when such a restraint is essential to prevent multiplicity of proceedings;

 To stop or restraint any person from applying to any legislative body;

 Where the plaintiff has no personal interest in the case;

 To stop any person from prosecuting any proceedings in any criminal matter;

 To stop any person from prosecuting any proceedings in a Court which is not
subordinate to the one from which the injunction is sought;

 To stop an act on the ground of nuisance, for which it is not reasonably clear
that it will create a nuisance;

 To stop any continuing breach for which the plaintiff has acquiesced;

 To stop the breach of contract, the performance of which would not be

specifically enforced;

 When the conduct of the plaintiff or any of his agents is such so as to

disentitle him from the assistance of the court;

 When an equally efficacious relief is available and can be obtained by any

other means except in case of breach of trust;

Illustrations

1. A seeks an injunction to restrain her partner, B from receiving the partnership debts
and effects. It appears that A had improperly possessed himself of the books of the
firm and refused B to assess them. The court will refuse the injunction.
2. A manufactures and sells crucibles, designating them as "patent plumb-age crucibles"
though in fact they have never been patented. B pirates the designation. A cannot
obtain an injunction to restrain the piracy.

Section 42. Injunction to perform negative agreement.

16 | P a g e
 Section 42 presupposes that a contract is composed of three ingredients-

(a) an affirmative agreement to do certain act,

(b) a negative agreement not to do a certain act and the negative part must be
capable of being separated from the rest of the contract, and

(c) the plaintiff must have fully carried act his part of the contract.

Conditions necessary for the applicability of section.-It is essential-

(1) the contract should compromise of two agreements, one affirmative and
the other negative,

(2) both the agreements must be divisible,

(3) the negative agreement must relate to a specific act, it should not be
general negative of a stipulation,

(4) the court should be unable to compel specific performance of the

affirmative agreement,

(5) the plaintiff must not have failed to perform the contract so far as it is
binding on him.

Illustrations:

1. A contracts to sell to B for Rs. 1000 the goodwill of a certain business

unconnected with business premises, and further agrees not to carry on that
business in Calcutta. B pays A the Rs. 1000 but A carried on the business in
Calcutta. The court cannot compel A to send his old customers to B, but B may
obtain an injunction restraining A from carrying on the business in Calcutta.

2. A contracts with B to sing for twelve months at B's theatre and not to sing in
public elsewhere. B cannot obtain specific performance of the contract to sing, but
he is entitled to an injunction restraining A from singing at any other place of
public entertainment.

Case Laws:
17 | P a g e
 1. L.D. Mestone School vs. kashi Nath (1951)

These two connected appeals arise out of two orders of injunction passed in a suit
brought by the respondent Shri Kashi Nath Misra against the appellant L.D. Meston
School Society, Ballia, for a declaration that a resolution passed by the appellant
society on 21-6-1950 was "illegal, ultra vires and ineffective" and that Pt. Sita Ram
Chaturvedi, Principal, of a college which is managed by the appellant society could
not be asked to make over a charge of his office.

It may be noticed that neither Pt. Sita Ram Chaturvedi nor Dr. Kapil Deo Upadhya
was a party to the suit. The injunction that was prayed for was for the benefit of Pt.
Sita Ram Chaturvedi and was to operate as against Dr. Kapil Deo Upadhya. None of
them being parties to the suit, it is obvious that no such injunction could be issued.
For both these reasons, we think that the orders passed by the Court below were
wholly unjustified. They must, therefore, be set aside.

2. Pepsi Foods vs Jai Drinks (P) Ltd. on 4 March, 1996

It is held that prima facie, "PEPSI" had a right under the contract to terminate the
license agreement and the only right available to "JAI" was to file a suit for
damages, "JAI" cannot continue to manufacture or market the products for which
the license had been given by "PEPSI" "PEPSI" is, therefore, entitled to an
injunction restraining "JAI" from manifacturing or marketing the products under
the brand name of Lehar Pepsi, Lehar 7 Up and Lehar Mirinda.

3. Interkardio Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gyrus Group PLC

18 | P a g e
 The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants, inter alia seeking
relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement with
defendant no. 1 referred to as Gyrus on 22.9.2004 where under the plaintiff was
appointed as the exclusive distributor of Gyrus with the right to import, promote
and sell the products of Gyrus in the agreed territory i.e. India, Nepal and
Bangalore.

Assuming that the distribution agreement stood automatically renewed as

contended by the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot rely upon Section 42 of the Act also
for the reason that admittedly it has failed to perform its obligations under the
contract. The plaintiff has failed to meet the annual purchase targets in the first
two years of the agreement. Obviously, the plaintiff cannot seek to restrain the
defendants, to enforce the negative agreement while at the same time itself failing
to perform its own obligations thereunder.

4. Inox Leisure Limited v. PVR Limited (2020)

The High Court of Delhi (“DHC”) in the case of Inox Leisure Limited v. PVR
Limited (decided on May 18, 2020) held that an injunction seeking interference
with the contractual relations of parties, without an explicit law in place, would
violate the fundamental rights under Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India.

5. Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh : (2013) 2 SCC 398

This case is an important illustration of how injunctions can be used to prevent

harm to a party in a contractual relationship in India. The High Court granted an
injunction against the respondent to prevent further loss and to make the contract
equitable between the parties.

19 | P a g e
 6. Jayant Nath v. Saligram Ltd. between the two. :- (2021) SCC Online
Del 561

In this recent case, the Delhi High Court granted interim injunction to the plaintiff,
where the defendant did not sell the goods in violation of the terms of their
distributorship agreement. Thus this decision further underscores the need for
mandatory relief in the 1990s contractual disputes where damages are insufficient
to rectify the harm.

7. Lalbhai Dalpatbhai & Co. vs Chittaranjan Chandulal Pandya on 14

April, 1965

it is evident that there is no material on record which would show how far the
enforcement of the negative stipulation contained in the contract is necessary for
the protection of the legitimate interests of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are
carrying on business as managing agents of various textile mills, while the
defendant is a fresh graduate from the university. It is no doubt that the defendant
has had experience in the engineering department of one of the mills under the
management of the plaintiffs for a short period but nothing has been shown on the
affidavits as to how the plaintiffs would be prejudiced if the defendant is nor
restrained from serving any other employer.

This application is only for an interim injunction and it may be that at the
hearing of the suit the plaintiffs may be able to lead evidence to show that it is
necessary for the protection of the interests of the plaintiffs that the defendant
should be restrained from serving in any other textile mill in the same capacity or
even with any other employer, but to-day there is no material before us which
would warrant the grant of an injunction even in a limited form. The test which we
have formulated above is not satisfied and we cannot, therefore, issue an
injunction in any form against the defendant.

20 | P a g e
 8. Ram Kishun v. Jamuna Prasad, (1951) 6 DLR 22 (Pat)

The question to be examined in this case is whether the petnrs. are entitled
to be granted a temporary injunction against the oposite party restraining
the latter from executing the order of eviction made by the House
Controller, Monghyr.

The argument was stressed that it was in the discretion of the lower Cts. to
grant or not to grant an order of temporary injunction, & the H. C. ought not
to interfere in such a case. But I am of the opinion that the lower Cts. have
not exercised their discretion according to well-settled judicial principles
but, on the contrary, have acted in an arbitrary manner. Instead of finding
whether a prima facie case has been made out, the lower appellate Ct. has
indeed decided the whole suit by finding that "there was no lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the House Bent Controller in passing the eviction
order & the title suit filed is merely a contrivance to extend the period of
stay o£ the applts. in the house as long as possible

9. Bruce v. Silvaraj, (1987) Supp SCC 161

It arises out of a suit for injuction. It is well settled that injuction can be obtained
on the basis of possession. In view of the result of the connected appeal where
possession of the adversary has been confirmed, no injuction was available to be
granted. The civil appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the High
Court are set aside and those of the lower appellant courts which dismissed the
suit shall stand restored.

21 | P a g e
 10. Overnite Express Limited vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

Reading of the judgments referred to above leads this Court to only one
conclusion that a Contract which in its nature is determinable, cannot be
specifically enforced in view of the clear legal bar under Section 14(1)(c) of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Once a Contract is not enforceable, Section 41(e) Specific Relief Act, 1963,
occupies the field and provides that an injunction cannot be granted to prevent the
breach of a Contract, the performance of which would not be specifically
enforced. Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Footnote:-

[Link]
two-parties-in-absence-of-law-would-violate-article-195-of-the-constitution-of-india/

22 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

Injunction is an equity-based relief. It is completely at the court's discretion to grant

an injunction or to refuse it. The relief cannot be claimed as an affair of right
however worthwhile the applicant's case may be. The power to grant an injunction
must, therefore, be exercised with the utmost prudence, vigilance, and care. It is an
extraordinary and sensitive power that is associated with the risks of imposing losses
or disadvantages upon the innocent party. Thus unlike all other things in this world,
the grant of an injunction is also not absolute.

One of the greatest hurdles in administering justice today is a delay. Delay injustice
needs to be tackled by the joint efforts of all stakeholders. However, the harsh truth in
today's World is that we are progressing towards a society that is overrun by hordes of
lawyers, hungry like locusts, and bridges of judges in numbers that have never been
considered before. But it is wrong to believe that ordinary people want black-robed
judges, well-dressed lawyers, fine-tuned courtrooms to resolve their disputes. People
with legal Issues, such as people with pain, want relief and want it as quickly as
possible and an injunction is just one of the methods to help those people in seeking
relief for upholding their rights.

The grant of injunction is not a matter of right but it is the full discretion of the courts
and the parties cannot claim it as a right. The injunctions can be granted by the courts
only when they feel that the case fulfils the criteria as laid down under the Acts for
grant of injunctions and it should be as per the sound principles of law and ex debito
justitiae.

The following are few of the principles that are to be borne in mind while dealing with
any such applications:

23 | P a g e
 • Where there Is a right, there Is a remedy (Ubijus ibi remediam)

• The one who is seeking equity must do equity and must come with clean hands
(Ex turpi causa non oritur actio).

• Equity follows the law (Aequitas sequitur legem).

• Law aids those who are vigilant and not those who are indolent or sleeping over their
rights (Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt).

It can be said that the plaintiff has to establish the legal right and his exclusive
possession to get the relief of injunction and the court has the power and
discretion to grant the Injunction order to prevent the breach of obligation and
protect the rights of the people.

Since the power to grant injunction is discretionary ,the refusal to grant the
same by the court Is, thus, proper and cannot be said to be arbitrary.

24 | P a g e
Footnote:
[Link]
[Link]

REFERENCES:-

1. [Link]

2. [Link]

3. [Link]
of-two-parties-in-absence-of-law-would-violate-article-195-of-the-constitution-of-india/

4. [Link]

5. [Link]
of-two-parties-in-absence-of-law-would-violate-article-195-of-the-constitution-of-india/

6. [Link]
[Link]

25 | P a g e