Tag Archives: Judicial Discretion

Interim Mandatory Injunction

In Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117, it was held as under:

        “The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or to the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. These guidelines are:

  • The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction.
  • It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.
  • The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.

Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion.”

It is well established that an interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted. It is an order that is passed only in circumstances which are clear and the prima facie material clearly justify a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of the parties to the litigation and the interests of justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored by way of an interim mandatory injunction. Samir Narain Bhojwani v. Aurora Properties and Investments, (2018) 17 SCC 203.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Law, Interim Mandatory Injunction

Expression “Sufficient Cause” – Interpretation of

The expression “sufficient cause” is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of the justice – that being the life –purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others, AIR 1996 SC 1623 held as under:
“In G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 2 SCC 142, it was held that no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel could be laid. The expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay.”
In Baswaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 it was held as under:
“Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in view of the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case, or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously.” Smt. Jinnatul Nisa v. VIth ADJ, 2017 (123) ALR 431.

Leave a comment

Filed under Sufficient Cause