GRANT OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION

1. State of Punjab v. Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, (1993) 3 SCC 459

Para 13:

This determination leads us to hold that the State of Punjab has no title to the disputed property
and hence must obey the mandatory injunction issued by the lower appellate court as confirmed
by the High Court. We, however, go on to observe that the mandatory injunction granted by the
lower appellate court is so weakly worded that it is capable of being evaded totally, and in any
event for a very long time to the point of negating it. In any case the injunction has to be carried
out within a reasonable time. Thus, in order to do complete justice between the parties, we have
thought it fit to fix a reasonable time for its obedience. Let the mandatory injunction issued by
the lower appellate court be carried out in its entirety, latest by the end of three years.

2. State of Haryana v. State of Punjab, (2004) 12 SCC 673

Para 38:

A mandatory injunction on the other hand commands an act to be done and is provided for under
Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which reads:

"Mandatory injunctions - When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel

the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its
discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel
performance of the requisite acts".

This command may direct the restoration of status-quo ante or may direct the performance of a
positive act altering the existing state of things. A mandatory injunction like a preventive
injunction may be temporary or final.

3. HUDA v. Orchid Infrastructure Developers Ltd., (2017) 4 SCC 243

Para 12:

Firstly, we examine the question whether there being no concluded contract in the absence of
acceptance of bid and issuance of allotment letter, the suit could be said to be maintainable for
the declaratory relief and mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has prayed
for a declaration that rejection of the bid was illegal. Merely by that, plaintiff could not have
become entitled for consequential mandatory injunction for issuance of formal letter of
allotment. Court while exercising judicial review could not have accepted the bid. The bid had
never been accepted by concerned authorities. It was not a case of cancellation of bid after being
accepted. Thus even assuming as per plaintiff’s case that the Administrator was not equipped
with the power and the Chief Administrator had the power to accept or refuse the bid, there had
been no decision by the Chief Administrator. Thus, merely by declaration that rejection of the
bid by the Administrator was illegal, the plaintiff could not have become entitled to
consequential relief of issuance of allotment letter. Thus the suit, in the form it was filed, was not
maintainable for relief sought in view of the fact that there was no concluded contract in the
absence of allotment letter being issued to the plaintiff, which was a sine qua non for filing the
civil suit.

4. Rikhabsao Nathusao Jain v. Corporation of the City of Nagpur, (2009) 1 SCC 240

Para 29:

Even however assuming that the court has the implied power to grant injunction and that too
mandatory in nature de'hors the provisions of Section 286(5) of the Act, certain principles
therefor must be borne in mind.

We may, in this regard, only notice the legal principles as enunciated by this Court, from time to
time in this behalf.

In Metro Marins v. Bonus Watch Co. (P) Ltd. [(2004) 7 SCC 478], this Court held:

"9. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the documents produced, we are satisfied that the impugned order of the appellate court cannot
be sustained either on facts or in law. As noticed by this Court, in Dorab Cawasji Warden v.
Coomi Sorab Warden it has held that an interim mandatory injunction can be granted only in
exceptional cases coming within the exceptions noticed in the said judgment. In our opinion, the
case of the respondent herein does not come under any one of those exceptions and even on facts
it is not such a case which calls for the issuance of an interim mandatory injunction directing the
possession being handed over to the respondent. As observed by the learned Single Judge the
issue whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession is yet to be decided in the trial court and
granting of any interim order directing handing over of possession would only mean decreeing
the suit even before trial. Once the possession of the appellant either directly or through his agent
(caretaker) is admitted then the fact that the appellant is not using the said property for
commercial purpose or not using the same for any beneficial purpose or the appellant has to pay
huge amount by way of damages in the event of he losing the case or the fact that the litigation
between the parties is a luxury litigation are all facts which are irrelevant for changing the status
quo in regard to possession during the pendency of the suit."