Temporary Injunction

A temporary injunction is a provisional relief that aims to protect the subject matter in
the existing condition, without the defendant’s interference or threat. It aims to protect
the plaintiff from getting disposed off, or his property (subject matter) being destroyed or
harmed, or from any injury to the plaintiff. The primary reason behind a temporary
injunction is to protect the interests of an individual or entity, till the final judgement is
passed. A temporary injunction, when granted, continues to remain for a specified
period of time, or till the court deems fit.

When can Temporary Injunction be granted?

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION MAY BE GRANTED, SUBJECT TO THREE TESTS:

• whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case?

• whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff? And
• whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable damage, if the injunction is not
granted? Now, to explain these points, lets look into some illustrations:

ILLUSTRATION: ‘A’ is a merchant who has a food processing factory located in Bandra,
in Mumbai, India. In front of his factory, one of the neighboring factory workers (‘B’)
started duping waste, which ultimately lead to the food getting spoilt. ‘A’ filed a suit
against ‘B’, whereby the court agreed to a temporary injunction, which prevented ‘B’
from dumping more waste.

NOW, USING THIS ILLUSTRATION LET US EXPLAIN THE THREE CONDITIONS:

WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS A PRIMA FACIE CASE?

From this illustration, it is evident that ‘A’ is suffering from a significant problem, as it
indirectly affects his livelihood. Therefore, it is prima facie evident that the grant of an
injunction is important.

WHETHER THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF?

In the above illustration, no matter who reads it, it is a common contention that the
Plaintiff is suffering a damage, due to which the scales of justice in his side is heavier.
Therefore, it is clear that the balance of convenience is tilted towards the Plaintiff.

WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF WOULD SUFFER AN IRREPARABLE DAMAGE IF THE

INJUNCTION IS NOT GRANTED?

In a situation where the court would have disagreed to grant the temporary injunction in
favour of the Plaintiff, the food products in his factory would be destroyed, thereby
affecting his income and causing great loss. Therefore, it is clear that the Plaintiff would
have suffered an irreparable damage to his goods.

WHAT IS A PERMANENT INJUNCTION?

A permanent injunction (also known as perpetual injunction) is one that is delivered at

the time of the final judgement, and therefore is more often than not, prevalent for a
longer period of time. In this scenario, the Defendant is perpetually restrained from the
commission of an act, or the abstinence from the commission of an act, which would
defeat the interests of the Plaintiff.

WHEN CAN A PERMANENT INJUNCTION BE GRANTED?

SECTION 38 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 PROVIDES THE SITUATIONS
WHERE PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS CAN BE GRANTED, AND STATES THAT:-

(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a

perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation
existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.

(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules
and provisions contained in Chapter II.

(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or
enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases,
namely:

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

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

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

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

TO SIMPLIFY THESE POINTS, LET US USE SOME ILLUSTRATIONS:

Section 38(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.
Ram is a tenant at Shyam’s flat. Shyam has specifically asked Ram to not displace the
prayer room, as it had a gold statue of a deity. Ram wilfully disobeyed and tried to
remove the statue.

Here, the court may grant a permanent injunction, in order for Ram to fulfil the request
of Shyam.

Section 38(2): When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided
by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.

Aryan is the co-founder of a company X. He breaches the clauses of the company rules
and therefore, creates a risk of potential damage to the company’s reputation. Ayesha is
the co-founder of company X too. She may attain an injunction to prevent Aryan from
doing an act that would eventually aid to the destruction the reputation of the company.

Section 38(3): When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to,
or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following
cases, namely:

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

Seema owns a farmhouse in Dheradun. Emily is a trustee of the property and engages
in some illegal activities. Here, Seema may seek an injunction to prevent further
illegality.

(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely
to be caused, by the invasion;
Ayush has a three year tenancy lease at Dev’s house. Upon the expiry of such lease,
Dev wanted to move back to his house. However, Ayush refused to leave or pay rent.
Dev may seek an injunction as there may be a risk of him being homeless and suffer
huge losses.

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

Arjun, Karan’s school friend rents an office space from him, to set up an office. Being
his friend Karan agrees to the same. However, Arjun refuses to pay rent and does not
clear his dues. There is a lag of 8 months, with leads to heavy losses for Karan. He is
entitled to seek an injunction in order to stop Arjun from using the office space.

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

Arya has 7 tenants, out of which, 5 tenants have failed to pay the rent for 5 months,
consecutively. She files a suit against all of them, with the same cause of action. The
court may allow an injunction, in order to prevent multiple proceedings, simultaneously.

MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERMANENT AND

TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS

A temporary injunction is granted for a specified period of time, or as adjudged by the

court. It may be granted at any point during the suit.

A permanent injunction, on the other hand, is granted by the decree of the court, and
upon the examination of the facts and merits of the case.
Order 39 (Rules 1 to 5) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, governs temporary injunctions.

Whereas, permanent injunctions are governed by sections 38 to 42 of The Specific Relief

Act, 1963.

A temporary injunction is non-conclusive. Basically, it is a temporary order, rather than a

permanent solution.

A permanent injunction, on the other hand, deals with the finality of a judgement, thereby
providing a conclusive and long term solution to the dispute at hand.

A temporary injunction may only focus on the Plaintiff’s side of the case and therefore
may be one-sided. However, it is important to understand, that this is not always so.

A permanent injunction, on the other hand, focuses on the Plaintiff as well as the
Defendant. It hears both parties, and then provides a solution.

A temporary injunction, being temporary in nature, may be revoked by the court that
passes the injunction order.

However, a permanent injunction is non-revocable by the court that decides to pass such
order. However, it may be revoked by an appellate or higher court.

A lack of immediate response or request by the Plaintiff may lead to a dis-approval of the
grant of an injunction order.

On the other hand, a permanent injunction order allows the parties to explain, elaborate
and provide for details at a later and more relaxed pace, provided there are sufficient and
valid grounds for the same.
A temporary injunction is simply an order by the court.

A permanent injunction is a decree (i.e., an official order by a court of law).