TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

This article is written by Twinkle Linga ,Institute of Law, Nirma University LLM During Internship at Le Droit India.

ABSTRACT

Injunctions are essential judicial tools designed to avert harm and safeguard rights in legal conflicts. Temporary injunctions, also known as interim or preliminary injunctions, offer short-term relief to preserve the status quo and prevent immediate, irreparable damage during litigation. These are granted based on the applicant’s demonstration of a prima facie case, imminent harm, and a favorable balance of convenience. On the other hand, permanent injunctions, or perpetual injunctions, provide long-term relief following a detailed evaluation of the case’s merits, effectively resolving disputes with lasting impact. They are issued to prevent future infringements of rights or ongoing damage. Both types of injunctions are crucial for ensuring fair outcomes and upholding justice, temporary injunctions manage urgent concerns, while permanent injunctions deliver definitive resolutions. Their use highlights the court’s role in balancing short-term and long-term legal protections.

Keywords: injunction, rights, damage, temporary, permanent, relief, legal, case.

INTRODUCTION

In the legal field, injunctions are essential instruments that courts utilize to safeguard rights, uphold laws, and prevent damage. These court orders compel a party either to undertake specific actions or to abstain from certain behaviors. Injunctions are primarily divided into two categories: temporary (often referred to as preliminary or interim) injunctions and permanent injunctions. Each category serves unique roles within the legal framework, addressing different requirements and situations. This article examines the concepts of temporary and permanent injunctions, discussing their legal basis, objectives, distinctions, and the processes involved in securing them.

This aspect of justice is designed to restore a party’s violated rights in situations where monetary or compensatory damages are inadequate and may be supplemented by other remedies. A court has the authority to issue injunction orders in such cases to prevent an individual from causing nuisances to the applicant. For temporary injunctions, an application can be submitted to the court, whereas a lawsuit is required for permanent injunctions. Temporary injunctions are those that remain effective for a specific period or until further court orders. These injunctions can be issued at any point during the lawsuit and are regulated by Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, rather than the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

WHAT IS AN INJUNCTION?

Injunctions under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) are judicial directives that either prohibit a party from engaging in a specific action or require a party to carry out a particular act. Courts issue these orders to maintain the status quo or to prevent irreparable damage while a civil suit is ongoing. Injunctions act as a safeguard to ensure justice and equity during legal proceedings.

When a court delivers a judgment in such a case, the parties are obligated to comply with the ruling. Failure to do so can result in significant financial penalties or even imprisonment in certain situations. An injunction is a form of discretionary relief granted by the court, compelling a party either to take a specific action or to refrain from certain activities. This relief can be issued as either an interim order or a final order.

Injunctions are strong legal instruments that courts use to uphold people’s rights and stop them from breaching the rights of others. They have their roots in the historical evolution of equitable principles, which began with Roman law and progressed via English equity jurisprudence. Depending on the particulars of each case, injunctions may also be issued to guarantee the execution of particular activities. The ultimate goal of injunctions is to restore equity and fairness in the judicial process by repairing any irreversible harm that may have been caused to the parties.

This article deals with two kinds of injunctions namely: Temporary injunction and Permanent injunction.

1. Temporary Injunction

A temporary injunction, often referred to as an interim or preliminary injunction, is a provisional measure issued by the court to maintain the status quo until the dispute is fully resolved. Its main objective is to prevent imminent harm that cannot be adequately addressed through monetary compensation or to avoid circumstances that could render the final judgment ineffective.

The primary aim of granting this injunction is to protect an individual’s interests or the property involved in the lawsuit until the final judgment is rendered. The key considerations for issuing such an injunction include whether the party has a prima facie case, if the balance of convenience favors the complainant, and whether the plaintiff would endure irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted.

Examples of situations where temporary injunctions might be issued include cases where property is in danger of being destroyed or disposed of, where a defendant threatens harm or dispossession of the plaintiff, or to prevent a breach of contract. The court is required to follow due process by notifying affected parties and justifying any urgent injunctions. Additionally, all cases involving injunctions must be resolved within thirty days, with any delays being clearly explained.

To secure a temporary injunction, the applicant must demonstrate to the court:

• Prima Facie Case: The applicant must present a valid and arguable case, showing that there is a serious issue to be tried, though they do not need to prove their case in full at this stage.
• Irreparable Harm: The applicant must prove that they would experience harm that cannot be remedied by monetary damages if the injunction is not granted, and that this harm is both imminent and substantial.
• Balance of Convenience: The court will evaluate which party would suffer more from granting or denying the injunction, ensuring that the injunction does not cause excessive harm to the respondent.
• Public Interest: In some instances, the court may also consider the broader public interest, particularly if the case involves public rights or has significant societal implications.
• Permanent Injunction

Permanent injunctions, also referred to as perpetual injunctions, as described in Section 37(2) of the Act, are issued through a final judgment, conclusively resolving the injunction suit. Unlike temporary injunctions, perpetual injunctions offer lasting relief and are granted after a detailed examination of the case’s merits. Section 38 outlines the conditions under which courts may grant perpetual injunctions, such as to prevent breaches of duty or violations of property rights.

A permanent injunction is issued by the court as a decree following the conclusion of a trial, permanently prohibiting the defendant from actions that violate the plaintiff’s rights. Although not addressed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the granting of permanent injunctions is governed by Sections 37(2) and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

A perpetual injunction can be granted to the plaintiff under the following circumstances:

• To prevent a breach of duty in the plaintiff’s favor, whether specifically or by implication, subject to the other conditions set forth in this Section.
• If the obligations stem from a contract, the court will follow the provisions and rules outlined in Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
• When the defendant infringes or threatens to infringe on the plaintiff’s right to or enjoyment of property, the court may issue a perpetual injunction in cases such as:

(a) When the defendant is the custodian of the plaintiff’s property;

(b) When there is no clear standard for assessing the actual damage caused, or when such damage is reasonably foreseeable;

(c) When the invasion is such that monetary compensation would not provide adequate relief.

CASE LAWS

1. Nuthaki Venkataswami v. Katta Nagi Reddy (1962)

 The Court ruled that a champertous agreement means where a person not involved in a lawsuit agrees to assist in prosecution or defense in exchange for a share of the proceeds is not inherently void. If the recovery does not violate public policy, the agreement cannot be deemed illegal, and therefore, an injunction may be granted.

• American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1975

This landmark case established the principles for granting interim injunctions. The court stressed the need to weigh the risk of injustice to both parties when deciding whether to issue an interim injunction. It underscored the importance of factors like the strength of the plaintiff’s case, the balance of convenience, and whether damages would be an adequate remedy.

• Satya Saran & Ors. v. Ram Lakhan & Ors. (2008)

In this case, the court issued a temporary injunction preventing the defendants from building a boundary wall on the contested property. The court noted that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience supported granting the injunction to avoid irreparable harm while the suit was pending.

• Lakshmi Narain Banerjee v. Tara Prosanna Banerjee (1904)

In this case, where the plaintiff and defendant were joint owners of the land, the defendant planted several trees whose roots penetrated the building’s foundation, causing damage. The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction from the court, which was granted, with the court concluding that the tree roots were indeed damaging the plaintiff’s building.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

CONCLUSION

A remedy based on equity is an injunction. The court has full authority to decide whether or not to issue an injunction. It is not possible to seek the remedy as a matter of right, regardless of how strong the applicant’s argument is. Therefore, extreme caution, diligence, and attention must be used while using the authority to issue an injunction. It is an incredible and delicate power that has the possibility of causing harm or losses to the innocent person. Thus, the granting of an injunction is likewise not absolute, unlike anything else in this world.

 Permanent injunctions are final remedies that settle conflicts with long-term consequences, whereas temporary injunctions are temporary procedures to handle pressing situations throughout litigation. In order to guarantee just results and safeguard the rights and interests of parties engaged in judicial procedures, both kinds of injunctions are essential. The cases illustrate how injunctions are utilized in civil suits to safeguard parties’ rights and ensure justice. They emphasize the importance of proving a prima facie case, assessing the balance of convenience, and demonstrating potential irreparable harm when seeking injunction relief under the CPC.

REFERENCES

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/injunction-all-you-need-to-know-about-it/
2. https://lawnotes.co/tag/differences-between-temporary-and-permanent-injunctions/
3. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-267-the-concept-of-temporary-and-perpetual-injunction.html
4. https://blog.ipleaders.in/temporary-permanent-injunction/#:~:text=Order%2039%20(Rules%201%20to,the%20Specific%20Relief%20Act%2C%201963.&text=A%20temporary%20injunction%20is%20an%20interim%20relief%20i.e%2C%20it%20is,and%20not%20a%20permanent%20solution.
5. Lakshmi Narain Banerjee v. Tara Prosanna Banerjee (1904)https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e103f9607dba389660eff6
6. Satya Saran & Ors. v. Ram Lakhan & Ors. (2008) https://lawnotes.co/tag/differences-between-temporary-and-permanent-injunctions/
7. American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1975) https://lawnotes.co/tag/differences-between-temporary-and-permanent-injunctions/

Nuthaki Venkataswami v. Katta Nagi Reddy (1962) https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e668ff607dba6b53434294