Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs Harish Ambalal Choksi 2024 INSC 910- CPC -TP Act- Interim Injunction – Lis Pendens

Can interim injunction restraining transfer of the suit property be refused merely because doctrine of lis pendens takes care of all pendente lite transfers?

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XXXIX Rule 1 -Transfer Of Property Act 1882 – Section 52 -Notwithstanding the Rule of lis pendens in Section 52 of the T. P. Act, there can be occasion for the grant of injunction restraining pendente lite transfers in a fit and proper case- if the doctrine of lis pendens as enacted in Section 52 of the T. P. Act was regarded to have provided all the panacea against pendente lite transfers, the Legislature would not have provided in Rule 1 for interim injunction restraining the transfer of suit property. (Para 45)

What is the scope of an appeal against grant or non-grant of interim injunction?

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order 43 Rule an appellate court, even while deciding an appeal against a discretionary order granting an interim injunction, has to: a. Examine whether the discretion has been properly exercised, i.e. examine whether the discretion exercised is not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the principles of law; and b. In addition to the above, an appellate court may in a given case have to adjudicate on facts even in such discretionary orders. .The appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying the well settled principles governing the scope of jurisdiction of appellate court under Order 43 of the CPC which have been reiterated in various other decisions of this Court. The appellate court should not assume unlimited jurisdiction and should guide its powers within the contours laid down in the Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd- Perversity – stringent. The emphasis is now more on perversity rather than a mere error of fact or law in the order granting injunction pending the final adjudication of the suit- The wrong finding should stem out on a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. Safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man’s inference on the facts. To him, if the conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the court below is possible, there is no perversity. If not, the finding is perverse. Inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not perversity. (Para 21-32,37)

What is the triple test for grant of interim injunction?

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XXXIX Rule 1 -Interim Injunction – It would not be appropriate for any court to hold a mini-trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction- The burden is on the plaintiff, by evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise, to prove that there is “a prima facie case” in his favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition precedent for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non- interference by the court would result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. The third condition also is that “the balance of convenience” must be in favour of granting injunction. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus, the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit. (Para 34)