An injunction represents a legal directive issued by a court, compelling an individual to either take certain actions or refrain from engaging in specific activities.
Such an injunction is warranted when it aligns with principles of justice and failing to enforce it would be inconsistent with the principles of fairness and ethical conduct. Injunctions are employed to rectify infringements upon an individual’s rights when punitive or compensatory measures are deemed inadequate. This approach adheres to the overarching objectives of fairness and justice for all parties involved.
A permanent injunction is issued by a court that prohibits an individual or entity from engaging in specific actions or behaviours on a lasting and enduring basis. It is typically granted following a thorough examination of the facts and merits of a case and forms a final and conclusive part of a court’s judgment.
Permanent injunctions are employed to safeguard legal rights and prevent ongoing or future harm, often serving as a remedy when monetary compensation is insufficient or ineffective. They are especially crucial in cases where irreparable harm may occur if the prohibited actions continue. Permanent injunctions are legally binding orders that demand compliance and can only be modified or revoked by an appellate or higher court, ensuring a definitive and long-term resolution to disputes and legal controversies.
According to Section 37(2) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, a permanent injunction can exclusively be obtained through a decree issued during the trial proceedings and based on the merits of the case.
A suit for permanent injunction is filed by the plaintiff to seek a permanent court injunction)that restrains the defendant from engaging in specific actions or behaviours permanently. This legal remedy is typically pursued when the plaintiff believes that the defendant’s actions if allowed to continue, will result in irreparable harm to their legal rights or interests and monetary compensation would be insufficient to rectify the situation.
A suit for permanent injunction can be filed when an individual or entity seeks a court order to prevent another party from engaging in certain actions or behaviours on a long-term and lasting basis.
Such a suit for permanent injunction can be initiated when there is an actual or imminent threat of irreparable harm or injury to the plaintiff’s legal rights and when monetary compensation is deemed inadequate or insufficient to remedy the situation.
Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides the situations where suit for permanent injunction can be granted and states that:-
(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.
(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:
(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion;
(c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
The following principles govern the grant of a permanent injunction as outlined in Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963:
A suit for permanent injunction may be allowed to the plaintiff to prevent a breach of a duty that exists in their favour, whether explicitly stated or implied, provided other conditions specified in Chapter VIII of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, are met.
In cases where a contract establishes such an obligation, the court must adhere to the guidelines and procedures set forth in Chapter II, which pertain to the specific performance of contracts.
- The court may authorise a perpetual injunction in the following circumstances when the defendant either violates or threatens to violate the plaintiff’s right to or enjoyment of property:
- When the defendant serves as the trustee of the plaintiff’s property.
- When there are no established criteria for assessing the actual or potential harm resulting from the infringement.
- When the infringement is so severe that monetary compensation would prove inadequate in affording suitable relief.
- When an injunction is necessary to avert a series of legal actions.
- Ram is a tenant at Shyam’s flat. Shyam has specifically asked Ram to not displace the prayer room, as it had a gold statue of a deity. Ram wilfully disobeyed and tried to remove the statue. Here, the court may allow a suit for permanent injunction, in order for Ram to fulfil the request of Shyam.
- Aryan is the co-founder of a company X. He breaches the clauses of the company rules and therefore, creates a risk of potential damage to the company’s reputation. Ayesha is the co-founder of company X too. She may attain injunction to prevent Aryan from doing an act that would eventually aid to the destruction the reputation of the company.
- Seema owns a farmhouse in Dheradun. Emily is a trustee of the property and engages in some illegal activities. Here, Seema may seek an injunction to prevent further illegality.
- Ayush has a three year tenancy lease at Dev’s house. Upon the expiry of such lease, Dev wanted to move back to his house. However, Ayush refused to leave or pay rent. Dev may seek an injunction as there may be a risk of him being homeless and suffering huge losses.
- Arjun, Karan’s school friend rents an office space from him, to set up an office. Being his friend Karan agrees to the same. However, Arjun refuses to pay rent and does not clear his dues. There is a lag of 8 months, which leads to heavy losses for Karan. He is entitled to seek an injunction in order to stop Arjun from using the office space.
- Arya has 7 tenants, out of which, 5 tenants have failed to pay the rent for 5 months, consecutively. She files a suit against all of them, with the same cause of action. The court may allow an injunction, in order to prevent multiple proceedings, simultaneously.
In the case of Jujhar Singh vs. Giani Talok Singh, the son’s suit for permanent injunction to prevent his father, who also served as the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), from selling HUF property was denied. The court deemed it unfeasible because the son, who was also a coparcener, had the option to contest the sale and seek its annulment through a lawsuit after the sale was completed.
Had the court granted the injunction, it would have restricted the father from selling the property, even when he was legally obligated to do so as the Karta, which would have been unlawful. Since the son had the status of a coparcener, he had other legal avenues at his disposal.
In the case of Cotton Corporation Of India vs. United Industrial Bank, there was a suit for injunction to prevent the defendants from initiating a winding-up petition under the Companies Act of 1956 or the Banking Regulation Act of 1949. The court dismissed the petition because it lacked jurisdiction to issue a temporary injunction preventing someone from filing a suit in a court that was not subordinate to it. The court ruled that if a perpetual injunction for the subject matter of the case could not be granted under Section 41(b) of the statute, then an interim injunction by default could not be issued.
The suit for a permanent injunction is a powerful legal recourse that plays a pivotal role in safeguarding individuals’ and entities’ rights and interests. It serves as a shield against irreparable harm and provides a definitive and enduring resolution to disputes. When monetary compensation proves inadequate and immediate action is imperative, this legal remedy comes into play.
Through a careful presentation of valid legal rights and convincing evidence, individuals can seek the protection of the court in restraining others from engaging in harmful actions. The court’s decision, reached after a thorough examination of the case, results in a binding and permanent order that prevents further violations of these rights.
Attention all law students!
Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?
Well, fear no more! With 45,000+ students already on board, you don't want to be left behind. Be a part of the coolest legal community around!
Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get instant notifications.