Temporary Mandatory Injunction:

-
Temporary Mandatory Injunction:

A temporary mandatory injunction is a court order requiring a party to perform a specific act or to maintain a certain status until a final judgment is made in the case. Unlike prohibitory injunctions, which prevent a party from doing something, mandatory injunctions compel a party to take a specific action.

Legal Framework in India:

Section 37(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: Defines temporary injunctions.
Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908: Deals with temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders.

Conditions for Granting Temporary Mandatory Injunction:

Prima Facie Case: The applicant must demonstrate that there is a substantial question to be tried.
Irreparable Injury: The applicant must prove that they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
Balance of Convenience: The court must be convinced that the balance of convenience lies in favor of the applicant.

Key Case Laws:

Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors. (1990): The Supreme Court laid down the principles for granting a temporary mandatory injunction, emphasizing the need for a strong prima facie case and the potential for irreparable harm.

Samir Sobhan Sanyal v. Tracks Trade Pvt. Ltd. (1996): The court ruled that mandatory injunctions should be granted only in exceptional cases where the injury caused by the refusal would be greater than the injury caused by granting the injunction.

Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra (2004): This case reiterated that temporary mandatory injunctions can be granted if there is a compelling necessity to prevent injustice.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Judgment Detailed Summary

-
Image
Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...
Read more

Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

-
Image
Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Citation: 2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar Legal Issues: Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable. Background: The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of...
Read more