Temporary Injunction

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd.
V.s
K.S. Infraspace LLP Ltd.

FACTS
The Plaintiff filed two suits for declaration and specific performance against the Defendant sister. The plaintiff contended that there existed a concluded agreement with defendant. After the negotiation for the sale of suit land, plaintiff had duly communicated its acceptance of the final draft MOU on 30-03-2018. Only the formal execution of contracted documents remained a formality. The plaintiff had already made the payment of Rs 2.16 Crore and is willing to pay the rest of the amount or balance amount. It was also claimed that there is an oral contract between the parties. The Defendants had entered into a registered agreement for sale with defendant no.2 on 31.03.2018 and thus he prayed for injunction suit. As this includes the involvement of the third party, then the creation of third party rights would lead to further litigation. Thus, by an order of temporary injunction the defendants were restraining plaintiff from executing a sale deed or interest with the land in any manner possible. The plaintiff and defendant have negotiated through the mails and WhatsApp messages from December, 2017 to March 31, 2018.

HELD
It was observed by the court that for granting or passing an order for injunction, it is not sufficient that there is only a prima facie case by itself. Further, if the court does not interfere that may cause irreparable loss or injury to the party seeking relief and he is not able to avail any remedy. And most importantly the balance of convenience and the conduct of the parties must be considered. The court may exercise its judicial discretion while granting or refusing the discretion.

The Supreme Court held that plaintiff seeking temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance will therefore have to establish a strong prima facie case on undisputed facts. Here gating of injunction to plaintiff is unsustainable so the order granted by the lower court for temporary injunction are to be set aside. Thus, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
.