Injunction in the Interest of Justice Case

Case name: Manohar Lal Chopra vs Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 1962 AIR 527
Relevant Excerpt: “There is difference of opinion between the High Court on this point. One
view is that a Court cannot issue an order of temporary injunction if the circumstances do not
fall within the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code: Varadacharlu v. Narsimha
Charlu (1), Govindarajulu v. Imperial Bank of India (2), Karuppayya v.
Ponnuswami (3), Murugesa Mudali v. Angamuthu Mudali (4) and Subramanian v.
Seetarama (5). The other view is that a Court can issue an interin injunction under
circumstances which are not covered by Order XXXIX of the Code, if the Court is of
opinion that the interests of justice require the issue of such interin
injunction: Dhaneshwar Nath v. Ghanshyam Dhar (6), Firm Bichchha Ram v. Firm Baldeo
Sahai (7),Bhagat Singh v. Jagbir Sawhney (8) and Chinese Tannery owners' Association v.
Makhan Lal (9). We are of opinion that the latter view is correct and that the Courts
have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunctions in circumstances which are
not covered by the provisions of O.XXXIX, Code of Civil Procedure. There is no such
expression in s. 94 which expressly prohibits the issue of a temporary injunction in
circumstances not covered by O. XXXIX or by any rules made under the Code.”
Copy of the judgment: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5192/
(A copy of this judgment is unavailable on SCC Online.)