Header Ads Widget

-Ss. 42, 54 & 56---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction--

 2022 S C M R 366

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Interim injunction, application for---Scope---Orders passed on interim applications do not have any binding effect on the final outcome of the main proceedings.
(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 42, 54 & 56---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Supreme Court Employees Co-operative Housing Society ('the Housing Society'---Service contract/Joint Venture Agreement ('the JVA') between the Housing Society and a construction company ('the company') for purchase and development of land---Breach of 'JVA' by the company---Termination of JVA by the Housing Society---Pursuant to termination of the JVA, the company (respondent) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Trial Court along with an application for interim injunction---Said injunction application was dismissed, and appeal against the same was also dismissed by the Appellate Court---High Court by way of impugned judgment set-aside the orders of the courts below and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for decision on the injunction application of the company, afresh affording opportunity of hearing to both parties---Validity---Company from the very inception of the contract till its termination had not addressed a single letter to the Housing Society or to any other .forum, justifying their failure in discharging their obligations under the contract---Admittedly, the company had pocketed a huge amount of Rs.24,97,00,000/- immediately after amendment in the basic contract, which amount the Housing Society was not obliged to pay to the company and even at the time of hearing of present proceedings, the counsel for the company admitted that an amount of more than Rs. 2 crores was laying with them, which they had offered to pay (back) to the Housing Society---Material produced before the court clearly established that the company was not in a position to develop the land---Suit filed by the company challenging the notice of termination of the contract, did not spell out justifiable grounds restraining the company from discharging its obligations under the contract---No written letter was ever addressed by the company from the year the JVA was signed till the termination of the contract, offering any explanation for not starting development work of the project---Company had wilfully avoided to plead the material facts in regard to the amounts which they had invested or spent on the land pursuant to the terms of the contract---In absence of such details in the pleadings, the company could not seek injunction against the Housing Society---Prima facie the company did not approach the Court with clean hands---Furthermore the High Court lost sight of the fact that S. 56 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 postulated that that no interim injunction shall be granted where the specific performance of the grant could not be allowed---Company failed to make out prima facie case for grant of injunction---Balance of convenience did not lie with the company to allow it to continue after termination of the contract for which it could otherwise approach the Court for damages in case it was established that the termination of the contract was unwarranted in law---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, impugned order of High Court was set aside, and judgments of courts below dismissing interim injunction application of company were restored.
(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Interim injunction---Basic ingredients---For grant of an interim injunction the party approaching the Court must show prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

Post a Comment

0 Comments

close