Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

No Prohibition In Granting Interim Mandatory Injunctions In Appropriate Cases: SC [Read Judgment]

Ashok Kini
4 April 2019 11:28 AM GMT
No Prohibition In Granting Interim Mandatory Injunctions In Appropriate Cases: SC [Read Judgment]
x
"The ad interim mandatory injunction, is to be granted not at the asking but on strong circumstance so that to protect the rights and interest of the parties so as not to frustrate their rights regarding mandatory injunction.”

The Supreme Court has observed that grant of interim mandatory injunction is not prohibited, and it can granted in 'appropriate' cases. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that an ad interim mandatory injunction, is to be granted not at the asking but on strong circumstance so that to protect the rights and interest of the parties so as...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court has observed that grant of interim mandatory injunction is not prohibited, and it can granted in 'appropriate' cases.

The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that an ad interim mandatory injunction, is to be granted not at the asking but on strong circumstance so that to protect the rights and interest of the parties so as not to frustrate their rights regarding mandatory injunction. 

The court was dealing with a contention raised in an appeal (Hammad Ahmed vs. Abdul Majeed) that an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, the Court will not grant interim mandatory relief resulting in creation of entirely new state of affairs which hitherto never existed. In this case, an interim mandatory injunction to hand over of the passwords and management of Hamdard (wakf) to appellant was sought.

Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Samir Narain Bhojwani v. Arora Properties and Investments . In the said judgment, the three judge bench had observed that Interim Mandatory Injunctions cannot be granted to establish a new set of things differing from the state which existed at the date when the suit was instituted.

Addressing this contention, the bench said:

"The grant of mandatory injunction is not prohibited even in Samir Narain Bhojwani case (supra). It has held that unless clear and prima facie material justifies a finding that status quo has been altered by one of the parties the order in mandatory injunction can be given.. The ad interim mandatory injunction, is to be granted not at the asking but on strong circumstance so that to protect the rights and interest of the parties so as not to frustrate their rights regarding mandatory injunction."

The bench also referred to Deoraj vs. State of Maharashtra which held that such interim relief only if it is satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the Court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice.

Read Judgment


Next Story
Share it