However, in Best Sellers Retail India (P) Ltd. Case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that prima facie case alone is not sufficient to grant injunction and held that:
"Yet, the settled principle of law is that even where prima facie case is in favour of the plaintiff, the Court will refuse temporary injunction if the injury suffered by the plaintiff on account of refusal of temporary injunction was not irreparable."Best Sellers Retail (India) (P) Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 792
Or. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 r/w S. 151 - Temporary injunction - Factors to be considered while passing order - Irreparable loss -
Prima facie case in favour of party seeking relief (plaintiff) not enough - It must be shown prima facie that injury suffered
by plaintiff on refusal of temporary injunction would be irreparable - Franchise/Agency agreement for exclusive sale of
goods of respondent-plaintiff Company through premises leased to appellant-defendant franchisee/agent partnership firm
by one of its partners and retention of possession of said premises for duration of agreement by said agent partnership
firm - Suit for specific performance of said agency agreement filed by respondent Company, also claiming alternative
relief of damages in case of non-grant of relief of specific performance - Along with said suit, application under Or. 39 Rr.
1 & 2 filed seeking temporary injunction restraining defendants (said partnership firm and partner concerned) from
leasing, sub-leasing, alienating or encumbering said leased premises - Though plaintiff would suffer financial losses on
refusal of temporary injunction but it would be entitled to damages if alternative relief claimed in suit was ultimately
granted by court - Hence, held, injury that would be suffered by plaintiff on refusal of temporary injunction cannot be said
to be irreparable - Courts below furthermore not justified in granting temporary injunction on ground that refusal would
entail hardship and mental agony to plaintiff-respondent Company - Plaintiff-respondent Company is a limited company
carrying on the business of readymade garments and it is not possible to appreciate what mental agony and hardship it
will suffer except financial losses, (2012) 6 SCC 792-A
Contract and Specific Relief
Specific Relief Act, 1963
S. 37 - Temporary injunction not governed by the Act, (2012) 6 SCC 792-B
Corporate Laws
Company Law
Mental agony and hardship, if can be suffered by company, (2012) 6 SCC 792-C
Or. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 r/w S. 151 - Temporary injunction - Factors to be considered while passing order - Irreparable loss -
Prima facie case in favour of party seeking relief (plaintiff) not enough - It must be shown prima facie that injury suffered
by plaintiff on refusal of temporary injunction would be irreparable - Franchise/Agency agreement for exclusive sale of
goods of respondent-plaintiff Company through premises leased to appellant-defendant franchisee/agent partnership firm
by one of its partners and retention of possession of said premises for duration of agreement by said agent partnership
firm - Suit for specific performance of said agency agreement filed by respondent Company, also claiming alternative
relief of damages in case of non-grant of relief of specific performance - Along with said suit, application under Or. 39 Rr.
1 & 2 filed seeking temporary injunction restraining defendants (said partnership firm and partner concerned) from
leasing, sub-leasing, alienating or encumbering said leased premises - Though plaintiff would suffer financial losses on
refusal of temporary injunction but it would be entitled to damages if alternative relief claimed in suit was ultimately
granted by court - Hence, held, injury that would be suffered by plaintiff on refusal of temporary injunction cannot be said
to be irreparable - Courts below furthermore not justified in granting temporary injunction on ground that refusal would
entail hardship and mental agony to plaintiff-respondent Company - Plaintiff-respondent Company is a limited company
carrying on the business of readymade garments and it is not possible to appreciate what mental agony and hardship it
will suffer except financial losses, (2012) 6 SCC 792-A
Contract and Specific Relief
Specific Relief Act, 1963
S. 37 - Temporary injunction not governed by the Act, (2012) 6 SCC 792-B
Corporate Laws
Company Law
Mental agony and hardship, if can be suffered by company, (2012) 6 SCC 792-C
No comments:
Post a Comment