NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved