Sahayata & Sahayata

  Grant of Temporary Injunction under CPC: Principles, Procedure, and Judicial Discretion  What is the criteria to grant temporary injunction by a civil court? On what basis temporary injunction is issued in a suit? Can an injunction be issued  without giving notice of application to the opposite party?  What are the essential ingredients for granting a temporary injunction?  Discuss relevant principles that govern grant of temporary injunction. Whether a  temporary injunction can be granted in the form of mandatory injunction?  What are the principles and considerations for exercising discretion to issue temporary  injunctions during the pendency of a suit. Can such an injunction be issued only under Order 39, read with section 94 C.P.C. or also in exercise of inherent powers saved by section 151 C.P. C CRITERIA AND PRINCIPLES FOR GRANT OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION BY CIVIL COURT Temporary Injunction is a judicial remedy issued during the pendency o...

 The conundrum you've pointed to — that courts in India exercise jurisdiction both in equity and law, but equity is subject to the provisions of law — reflects a deeper tension between justice, fairness (equity), and strict legal rules (law) . In Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari , AIR 2008 SC 171, the Supreme Court of India addressed this issue head-on. Let’s walk through it with logical indulgence and see how this judgment helps mitigate the contradiction: ⚖️ The Conundrum : India, inheriting the common law tradition , allows its courts to apply both: Law : Codified statutes and precedents. Equity : Principles of fairness, conscience, and natural justice. But, unlike in England where Courts of Equity were distinct (e.g., Court of Chancery), in India, the same courts administer both — with a crucial condition: "Where there is a conflict between law and equity, the law shall prevail." So, how do courts balance rigid legal rules with soft equitable ...

  Case Laws and Examples on 'Suit of Civil Nature' under Section 9 of CPC 1. Landmark Cases Elaborating on 'Suit of Civil Nature' (a) Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. (1940) Principle: The Privy Council emphasized that the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction must be clearly expressed or necessarily implied. If there is any doubt, civil courts should assume jurisdiction. (b) Abdul Rahman v. Md. Rulhuddin (1993) Principle: Even though a dispute is related to religious rights, if it involves a legal right such as property or office, it is maintainable in a civil court. (c) Shankaracharya of Puri v. UOI (1997) Principle: A dispute over who should be appointed as a religious leader (Shankaracharya) does not involve civil rights and is not maintainable in a civil court. (d) Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani (2003) Principle: The Supreme Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of civil courts should be presumed unless it is explicitly exc...