PREVENTIVE RELIEF

CHAPTER VII

INJUNCTIONS GENERALLY

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do, or to
refrain from doing, certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or
civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions. In some cases, breaches of
injunctions are considered serious criminal offenses that merit arrest and possible prison
sentences.

Emergency injunctions that are in effect only a short time are called temporary restraining
orders. Courts can also issue preliminary injunctions to take effect immediately and effective
until a decision is made on a permanent injunction, which can stay in effect indefinitely or until
certain conditions are met.

Every court is constituted for the purpose of administering justice among particles and there’re,
must be deemed to possess all such powers as may be necessary to do full and complete justices
to the parties before it.

It is a well settled principle of law that interim relief can always be granted in the aid of and as
ancillary to the main relief available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or
any other proceeding. Therefore, a court undoubtedly possesses the power to grant interim relief
during the pendency of the suit. Temporary injunctions are thus injunctions issued during the
pendency of proceedings.

Definition

An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing,
any particular act.  It is a remedy in the form of an order of the Court addressed to particular
person that either prohibits him from doing ‘or continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory
injunction); or orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction).
Object

The primary purpose of granting interim relief is the preservation of property in dispute till legal
rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the court are adjudicated. In other words, the
object of making an order regarding interim relief is to evolve a workable formula to the extent
called for by the demands of the situation, keeping in mind the pros and cons of the matter and
striking a delicate balance between two conflicting interests, i.e., injury and prejudice, likely to
be caused to the plaintiff if the relief is refused; and injury and prejudice likely to be caused to
the defendant if the relief is granted. The court in the exercise of sound judicial discretion can
grant or refuse to grant interim relief.

The underlying object of granting temporary injunction is to maintain and preserve status quo at
the time of institution of the proceedings and to prevent any change in it until the final
determination of the suit. It is in the nature of protective relief granted in favour of a party to
prevent future possible injury.

The need for such protection, however, has to be judged against the corresponding need of the
defendant to be protected against injury resulting from exercising his own legal rights. The court
must weigh one need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies and
may pass an appropriate order in exercise of its discretionary power.

The injunction is a specific order of the Court whereby it prohibits a wrongful act or enacts in a
wrongful course which has already commenced or cases it direct the things to be restored in their
prior state. An Injunction can be temporary or perpetual.
Injunction is a judicial process by which one who has invaded or is threatening to invade the
rights, legal or equitable, of another, is ordered to refrain from doing, or to do a particular act or
thing.

 An injunction is an equitable remedy; the party , who seeks relief, must come with clean
hands.
 Judicial process operating in personam,and requiring the person to whom it is directed to
do or refrain from doing a particular thing."
  Interdicts were "certain forms of words, by which the Praetor (the chief judicial
magistrate of Rome) either commanded or prohibited something to be done;
 Chancery became a court of law (which occurred c. 1380-1400 A.D.).
 Chancery and its development into a court is another aspect to understand the history of
injunctions.
 Injunctions appeared in Chancery as early as the 1390's. Injunction cases in Chancery's
early period (from the 1390's to about 1500) were quite diverse, involving such disparate
areas of law as real property, personal property, tort, and Contract.

In Pirthi v. Mohan Singh, it was held that if the plaintiff abuses the process of Court and
approaches Court with clean hands, the suit for the permanent injunction will be liable to be
dismissed.
In a suit for mandatory injunction, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. It was held
in Shankar Kumar v. Mohanlal Sharma, relief cannot be given on the ground that the
defendant failed to prove his case.
SEC 36. PREVENTIVE RELIEF HOW GRANTED.

Preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual.

SEC 37. TEMPORARY AND PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS.

(1) Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specific time, or until the further
order of the court, and they maybe granted at any stage of a suit, and are regulated by the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).

(2) A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the
merits of the suit; the defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right, or
from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff.

Temporary Injunction

Every court is constituted for the purpose of administering justice between the parties and
therefore, must be deemed to process all such powers as may be necessary to do full and
complete justice to the parties before it.
It is a well stated principle of law that an interim relief can always be granted in the aid of and as
ancillary to the main relief available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or
any other proceeding therefore, a court undoubtedly processes the power to grant interim relief
during the pendency of the suit. Case: State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal, AIR (1952)

An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do or to refrain from doing any
particular act.

Temporary injunction is mode of granting preventive relief by the court at its discretion. A
temporary injunction is also known as interim injunction.

 Definition of Temporary Injunction

According to order 39 of the CPC any order made temporarily prohibiting the defendant not to
alienate, or to change or to damage the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit is
called temporary injunction.

According to section 53 of the S. R. Act, temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a
specified time, or until the further order of the Court. They may be granted at any period of a suit
and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Thus temporary injunction is regulated under the provisions of rules 1-5, order 39 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.

Object of temporary injunction

The purpose of granting interim relief is the preservation of property in dispute till legal rights
and conflicting claims of the parties before the court are adjudicated.

The underlying object of granting temporary injunction is to maintain and preserve status quo at
the time of institution of the proceedings and to prevent any change in it until the final
determination of the suit.
According to Order 39 Rules 1& 2 of the CPC – A temporary injunction may be granted in
the following cases:

1. For the protection of interest in the property

(a) That property in dispute is in danger of being wasted or alienated by any party to the suit or
wrongfully sold in execution of a decree; or

(b) That the defendant threatens to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud his
creditors; and

(c) That the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the
plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit.”

The court may by the order grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain such act or make such
order for the purpose of staying and preventing the damage of wasting, alienation, sale or
disposition of the property as the court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit.

2. Injunction to restrain, repetition or continuance of breach

(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury,
of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may at any time
after the commencement the suit and either after or before judgement, apply to the court for a
temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or an
injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury arising out of same contract.

Discretionary Relief

It is to be noted that grant of an injunction is at the discretion of the court i.e. it is not the right of
an individual to get the injunction. Section 36 expressly lays down that, “Preventive relief is
granted at the discretion of the court by an injunction, temporary or perpetual”. Therefore the
court will grant a temporary injunction if the following conditions are satisfied by the case:
 1. The plaintiff must be able to establish a prima facie case. He is not required to
establish the clear title but a substantial question that requires to be investigated and
that matter should be preserved in the same status as it is until the injunction is finally
disposed of.
2. An irreparable injury may be caused to the plaintiff if the injunction is refused and
that there is no other remedy open to the applicant by which he could protect himself
from the feared injury.
3. The balance of convenience requires that the injunction should be granted and
compensation in money would not serve an adequate relief.

It is to be noted that it is a settled principle of law that if in a suit where there is no permanent
injunction sought for in the final analysis, ordinarily a temporary injunction cannot be granted.
So, the principles that govern the grant of a perpetual injunction would govern the grant of a
temporary injunction also. In Ishwarbhai v Bhanushali Hiralal Mohanlal Nanda case where
in a suit for specific performance, there was no prayer for a decree of perpetual injunction
restraining the defendant from transferring the suit land by way of sale till the disposal of the
suit. But the plaintiff in a suit prayed for a temporary injunction which was not granted because
of the settled principle.

In simple words, for obtaining a permanent injunction, a regular suit is to be filed in which the
right claimed is examined upon merits and finally, the injunction is granted by means of
judgement. A permanent injunction therefore finally decides the rights of a person whereas a
temporary injunction does not do so. A permanent injunction completely forbids the defendant to
assert a right which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff.

Who may apply?

The relief of temporary injunction is generally prayed for by the plaintiff. But in an appropriate
case the defendant may also pray for and obtain an order of temporary injunction against the
plaintiff.
Thus in the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of contract of a transfer, on the prayer of the
defendant, the plaintiff may be restrained from raising structure on the suit land by temporary
injunction. The defendant can apply for temporary injunction against the plaintiff only if the
relief claimed by the defendant arises out of the plaintiff’s cause of action or is incidental thereto.
Thus, injunction restraining the plaintiff from parting with possession of vacant portion of the
disputed premises to the purchaser until the disposal of the appeal may be granted. It is not the
plaintiff alone who can apply for an interim injunction. A defendant also may make an
application for grant of an injunction against the plaintiff.

Against whom injunction may be issued- An injunction may be issued only against a party and
not against a stranger or a third party. It also cannot be issued against a court or judicial officer.
Normally, injunction can be granted against persons within the jurisdiction of the court
concerned.

Nature of the relief

The relief of temporary injunction is an equitable relief and it is not granted where the pan
applying for temporary injunction does not come with clean hands. A dishonest litigant loses his
remedy when he is guilty of misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. Temporary
injunction shall not be granted in favour of a person in unauthorized possession. But where the
applicant has been in possession of the property in suit for sometime and claims title on the basis
of some documents, the question whether he is a trespasser will be decided at the trial. Injunction
will not be granted in support of illegal or unauthorized act. The court may also refuse temporary
injunction on the ground of delay, laches or acquiescence. The court is to take into consideration
the effect of issuing temporary injunction on third. Thus where the plaintiff is a regular supplier
of hospital goods to the Government, but its registration was not renewed on account of failure
of the plaintiff to comply with certain formality as a result of which the Government invited open
tenders and tenders from certain other suppliers were offered and the plaintiff filed a suit and
obtained interim injunction restraining the Government from accepting other tenders, the High
Court set aside the order of injunction holding that the interest of other suppliers who submitted
tenders for supplying goods cannot suffer for no fault of their own and by granting injunction the
court cannot put the other intending suppliers to great inconvenience.
Discretion of the Court  

According to section 22 of S.R. Act, the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is

discretionary, and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so;
but the discretion of the Court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial
principles and capable of correction by a Court of appeal.

The grant of temporary injunction is discretionary with the court and a party cannot get the relief
as a matter of course. It shall not be granted merely because it is lawful to do so. It is a power of
extraordinary nature and the court is to exercise the power with caution and great
circumspection. Where the trial court as also the appellate court did not grant injunction and in
the revision filed three months after the order of the appellate court the High Court Division
granted interim injunction ex pane the Appellate Division held it to be not a proper exercise of
the discretion. The court shall grant the relief only when it is satisfied that the applicant will
suffer irreparable loss or injury if the other party is not restrained as prayed for. The court should
always be willing to extend its hands to protect a citizen who is being wronged or is being
deprived of any property without due course of law, but at the same time the judicial proceedings
cannot be used to protect or perpetuate a wrong committed by a person who approaches the
court. The same consideration applies when the other party applies for vacating the interim relief
granted by the court. The discretion has to be exercised on sound judicial principles and not
arbitrarily. Where the court did not take into consideration material points involved in a case, the
discretion has not been properly exercised. The appellate court’s interference with the exercise of
such discretion is also governed by equitable principles and the appellate court will not interfere
unless it is found that the trial court has exercised the discretion arbitrarily or fancifully. Where
temporary injunction was granted by the courts below, the order cannot be disturbed in revision
without taking into consideration the findings of fact on the basis of which it was passed. Where
the appellate court set aside the order of the trial court omitting to consider the material points,
the trial court’s order was restored When on consideration of the materials on record discretion
was exercised in favour of granting injunction, it was not interfered in revision and the Appellate
Division refused to grant leave. The Appellate Division is reluctant to interfere with an
interlocutory order passed by the courts below.
CHAPTER VIII

PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS

SEC 38. PERPETUAL INJUNCTION WHEN GRANTED.

(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.

Perpetual Injunction when granted

When such obligation arises from contract the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions
contained in the chapter II of this Act.

i) Contracts which may specifically be enforced; and

ii) Contracts which can not specifically be enforced.

When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of,
property, the court may grant a perpetual injunctions in the following cases:-

a) Where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff.

 Illustration:a)     A trustee threatens a breach of trust. His co-trustees if any should and the
beneficial owner may sue for an injunction to prevent the breach.

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

Illustration: In the course of A’s employment as a vakil, certain papers belonging to his client,
B come into his possession. A threatens to make this papers public, or to communicate there
contents to a stranger. B may sue for an injunction to restrain A from so doing.

c)     where the invasion is such that pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief;

Illustration: A, is B’s medical advisor. He demands money for which B declines to pay. A then
threatens to make known effect of B’s communications to him as a patient. This is contrary to
A’s duty and B may sue for an injunction to restrain him from so doing.

d)    where it is provable that pecuniary compensation can not be got for the invasion;

Illustration: A, the owner of certain houses in Dhaka becomes insolvent. B buys them from the
official assigned and enters into possession. A persists in trespassing on and damaging the
houses and B is thereby compelled, at considerable expenses to employ men to protect the
possession. B may sue for an injunction to restrain further acts of trespass.

e) Where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

Illustration: A pollutes the air with smoke so as to interfere materially with the physically
comfort of B and C, who carry on business in a neighboring house. B and C may sue for an
injunction to restrain the pollution.

Explanation:

For the purpose of the section a trade mark is property.

Relevant case -M/S. Hossain Ahmed vs M/S HD Hossain & Brothers, 32 DLR
SEC 39. MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.

When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of

certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an
injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite
acts.

The sole purpose of mandatory injunction is to rectify any wrong done. The acts are restored
from their wrongful state to the right ones. The Court directs the defendant to do a certain thing.
The concept of mandatory injunction, though not directly but,  is given under Section 39 of the
Act of 1963. the following elements have to be taken into consideration while deciding on
whether to grant mandatory injunction or not:1

1. What acts are necessary in order to prevent a breach of the obligation

2. The requisite acts must be such as the court is capable of enforcing.

It is well accepted by the Courts that mandatory injunction is not to be granted in the following
cases:

Where compensation in terms of money would be an adequate relief to the

plaintiff

Where balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant

Where plaintiff has shown acquiescence in the acts of the defendant

To create a new state of things, but rather to restore status quo.

 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down the following test to be taken before granting
mandatory injunction:2 The plaintiff has must have a very strong case for trial. It should be of a
standard higher than that of a prima facie  case;

The plaintiff has to lay-bare that the grant of mandatory injunction is necessary to prevent
irreparable loss or serious injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money; and The
balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant.

1
Madho Singh v. Abdul Qaiyum Khan, AIR 1950 All 505
2
AIR 1990 SC 867
When a suit for Injunction and Declaration would lie?

In the case of Anathema Sudhakar vs. P Buchi Reddy & amp; Ors, The Hon’ble Supreme
court clearly mentioned the general principles as to when just a suit for permanent injunction can
proceed and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and or possession with injunction as
consequential relief which reproduced as under:

When a Plaintiff has a lawful or peaceful possession of a property and the defendant disturbs or
threatens such possession, then an injunction suit can be initiated. A person has a right to protect
his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory
injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the
rightful owner.

When the Plaintiff’s title is not disputed, but he does not have the possession then his remedy
would be to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary an injunction. without
claiming the relief for possession, a person who is out of his possession can’t simply seek the
remedy of injunction.

Where even after being in possession, Plaintiff’s title to the property is still in dispute, or under a
cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also thereat of dispossession from
the defendant, the Plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and consequential relief of
injunction. Where the title of the Plaintiffs is under cloud or in dispute and he is not in
possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for
declaration, possession and injunction.

In view of the above judgment any person can file a suit for declaration and injunction with
regard to any legal character or rights as to any property against any person who is denying or
interested to deny his title or such character.

In a suit for seeking declaration with regard to a right or title in respect of property along with
consequential injunction the Plaintiff will have to pray for a declaration as contemplated under
section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, an interim injunction during the pendency of the suit
under order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 and a mandatory injunction under section 38 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
 In the case of Dalpat Kumar Vs Prahlad Singh and Ors3, the court held that:

In a suit for declaration of rights or character and injunction the Plaintiff will have to
substantiate/prove his rights as claimed thereof. Accordingly the Court may in its discretion
award the rights so prayed along with permanent injunction if deemed fit and necessary in the
facts of the case.

Under section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the declaration made under section 34 by any
court will only be binding on the parties to the suit or any persons claiming through them
respectively as a declaration under section 34 is a right in personam and not a right in Rem. (SNP
Shipping Service Pvt Ltd vs. World Tanker Carrier Corporation) AIR 2000 BOM 34.

Disobedience of Injunction

Rule 2-A of Order 39 and Section 94(c) of the Civil Procedure Code provide for consequences of
disobedience of an injunction. Section 94(c) provides that, “In order to prevent the ends of
justice from being defeated the Court may if it is so prescribed grant a temporary injunction and
in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his
property is attached and sold.”

Rule 2-A of Order 39 provides that,

“(1) In case of disobedience of any injunction granted under Rule 1 and Rule 2 or breach of any
of the terms on which injunction was granted, the court granting the injunction or making the
order, or any court o which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the
person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached and may also order such person to
be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the
court directs his release.

(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end
of which time if the disobedience continues, the property attached may be sold.”

3
AIR 1993 SC 276 b
Case Laws Regarding Permanent Injunction

In the case of  Jujhar Singh vs. Giani Talok Singh 4 where a permanent injunction was sought
for by a son to prevent his father who happened to be the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family
(HUF), from selling the HUF property was set aside. It was not maintainable because the son,
also a coparcener, had got the remedy of challenging the sale and getting it set aside in a suit
subsequent to the completion of the sale.

On the other hand, granting the injunction sought would allow the son to use the injunction to
prevent the father from selling the property even if he is compelled to do so, due to legal
necessities.

Where in the case of Cotton Corporation Of India vs. United Industrial Bank 5, an injunction
was sought for to restrain the defendants from presenting a winding-up petition under the
Companies Act, 1956 or under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the court dismissed the
petition as it was not competent to grant, as a relief, a temporary injunction restraining a person
from instituting a proceeding in a court not subordinate to it.

The court here was of the view that if a perpetual injunction cannot be granted for the subject
matter of the case under Section 41(b) of the act, ipso facto temporary injunction cannot be
granted.

SEC 40. DAMAGES IN LIEU OF, OR IN ADDITION TO, INJUNCTION.

(1) The plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction under section 38, or mandatory injunction
under section 39, may claim damages either in addition to, or in substitution for, such injunction
and the court may, if it thinks fit, award such damages.

(2) No relief for damages shall be granted under this section unless the plaintiff has claimed such
relief in his plaint: Provided that where no such damages have been claimed in the plaint, the
4
 AIR 1987 P H 34
5
1983 AIR 1272, 1983 SCR (3) 962
court shall, at any stage of the proceedings, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint on such terms
as may be just for including such claim.

(3) The dismissal of a suit to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff
shall bar his right to sue for damages for such breach.

If the plaintiff claims for any additional damages along with the injunction sought for, either
perpetual or mandatory, or in substitution of the said injunction, the court may award him such
damages, if it thinks fit. If no damages have been claimed, the court may allow the plaintiff to
make the required amendments to the plaint and claim damages. However, it is highly
recommended to claim damages in the plaint before submitting it, as permission for further
amendments rests solely at the discretion of the court. The dismissal of a suit to prevent the
breach of an obligation existing in favor of the plaintiff bars his right to sue for damages for such
breach.

SEC 41. INJUNCTION WHEN REFUSED.

An injunction cannot be granted

(a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the
suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity
of proceedings;

(b) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not sub-
ordinate to that from which the injunction is sought;

(c) to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body;

(d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter;

(e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically
enforced;

(f) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be
a nuisance;
(g) to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced;

(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of
proceeding except in case of breach of trust;

(ha) if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or
interfere with the continued provision of relevant facility related thereto or services being the
subject matter of such project.

(i) when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to be the
assistance of the court;

(j) when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.

SEC 42. INJUNCTION TO PERFORM NEGATIVE AGREEMENT.

Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (e) of section 41, where a contract comprises an
affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied,
not to do a certain act, the circumstance that the court is unable to compel specific performance
of the affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting an injunction to perform the
negative agreement: Provided that the plaintiff has not failed to perform the contract so far as it
is binding on him.

The court can grant an injunction to not do certain acts, which are prohibited by the contract to
do. The court may do so even if it is unable to compel the performance of the affirmative terms
of the contract, i.e. the terms that requires the defendant to do (perform) certain acts. However, it
is subject to the fact, whether the plaintiff has performed the terms of the contract binding on him
or not. Non performance by the plaintiff dis-entitles him from obtaining such an injunction.

Lumley V Wagner , A a singer , agreed that she would sigh for 12 months at B’s theatre and that
she would not sing elsewhere in the public during that period. Here B cannot obtained specific
performance of the first part of the contract (i.e. to sing at his theatre), but he is entitled to an
injunction, restraining A from singing at other public places during that period. In this case
though there is one contract but contain two parts one is positive and other is negative. The two
parts are independent contracts. In this case court cannot debar itself to give injunction in case of
negative covenant.

The Supreme Court has also observed that the jurisdiction to grant an injunction under the Act is
discretionary and must be exercised according to sound principals of law, and ex debito justito.
The plaintiff cannot claim this relief as a matter of right. Before refusing or granting the
injunction, the court must weigh the pros and cons in each case, consider the facts and
circumstances in their proper perspectives, and then exercise its discretion in the best interest of
justice.