Sudesh v. M/S Jhumpa Fuel Station And Others

11.

"18. In the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kama and Anr. [(1981) 4 SCC 8], a three Judge Bench of this Court had opined that Section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied to a Letters Patent appeal as well. In Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors. [(1990) 2 SCC 117] grant of mandatory injunction at the interim stage has been left to the sound judicial discretion of the Court. Metro Marins and Anr. v. Bonus Watch Co. (P) Ltd. and Ors. [(2004) 7 SCC 478] also follows the principles laid down in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden (supra). But these two authorities dealt with the question of grant of interim injunction in

relation to disputes arising out of transfer of immovable property. Applicability of Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 of the Code on the question of granting interim injunction has been reconfirmed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Best Seller Retail (India) Private Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. and Ors. [(2012) 6 SCC 792]. In Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [(1999) 7 SCC 1], the principles guiding grant of interim injunction have been summarized as:- "24. We, however, think it fit to note herein below certain specific considerations in the matter of grant of interlocutory injunction, the basic being non-expression of opinion as to the merits of the matter by the court, since the issue of grant of injunction, usually, is at the earliest possible stage so far as the time-frame is concerned. The other considerations which ought to weigh with the court hearing the application or petition for the grant of injunctions are as below:

(i) extent of damages being an adequate remedy; (ii) protect the plaintiffs interest for violation of his rights though, however, having regard to the injury that may be suffered by the defendants by reason therefor;

(iii) the court while dealing with the matter ought not to ignore the factum of strength of one party's case being stronger than the other's;

(iv) no fixed rules or notions ought to be had in the matter of grant of injunction but on the facts and circumstances of each case - the relief being kept flexible;

(v) the issue is to be looked at from the point of view as to whether on refusal of the injunction the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury keeping in view the strength of the parties' case; (vi) balance of convenience or inconvenience ought to be considered as an important requirement even if there is a serious question or prima facie case in support of the grant; (vii) whether the grant or refusal of injunction will adversely affect the interest of the general public which can or cannot be compensated otherwise."

12.

Accordingly, relying upon the dicta