Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

Prashant RambhauPathare and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Aparna Ashok Joshi and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (16 Oct 2023)

Relief of temporary injunction is discretionary, Court would refuse it to a party who is not consistent in his/her stand

MANU/MH/4205/2023

Contract

Present Appeal is filed challenging Order passed by the trial Court rejecting application filed by Appellants/Plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction.

Whether Plaintiffs would succeed in establishing link by first succeeding in the amendment application and then in proving the contents of amended plaint, is something which would be clear at the end of the Trial. As on the date of the passing of the impugned order, Plaintiffs miserably failed to make out any prima facie case for grant of any temporary injunction.

Relief of temporary injunction is a discretionary relief. The Court would refuse the equitable relief of temporary injunction to a party who is not consistent in his/her stand. Plaintiff first pleaded that the amount of Rs. 1,73,00,000was paid towards purchase of suit flats and shop. Now in amendment he wants to suggest that the payment was towards purchase of another property and the agreement for sale of suit flats and shop was executed by way of 'adjustment'. When Plaintiff took a calculated chance of waiting for over 4 years for execution of agreement for sale and filed the Suit only after execution of Deed of Assignment dated 16 May 2018, the question that arises is whether Defendants (and especially the subsequent purchasers) can be made to suffer prejudice indefinitely till Plaintiffs establish their varying stands.

Grant of temporary injunction puts a fetter on right of Defendants (especially the subsequent purchasers). On the other hand, refusal of injunction would place Plaintiffs in the same position as they were since 2013 after alleged payment of Rs. 1,73,00,000. It must also be borne in mind that Plaintiffs have also made a prayer for refund of amount of consideration along with interest and compensation. Since Plaintiffs do not appear to be consistent in respect of their stand, the discretionary relief of temporary injunction could not have been granted in their favour by the Trial Court. The trial Court has rightly rejected application for temporary injunction. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : INJUNCTION   GRANT   DISCRETION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved