Principles for granting interlocutory order

In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das[(1994) 81 CompCas 318 : (1994) 3 JT 654 : (1994) 2 SCALE 1121 : (1994) 4 SCC 225 : (1994) 1 SCR 136 Supp] , the Apex Court laid down the following principles:

(a) Whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensure to the plaintiff;

(b) Whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;

(c) The Court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained so that making an improper order against a party in his absence is prevented;

(d) The Court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for some time and in such circumstances it will not grant exparte injunction;

(e) The Court would expect a party applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application;

(f) Even if granted, the ex parte injunction should be for a limited period of time;

(g) General principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the Court.

There are three factors either to grant or refuse to grant interim orders i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Order 12, Rule 6 of the CPC contemplates decree on admission. In maintenance cases, the grant of interim order depends upon the prima facie case and any other relevant considerations cannot be equated with the relief to be granted on admission under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no provision in the CPC either inconsistent with or prohibiting the exercise of inherent powers in granting interim relief. The Court by expressly or necessary implications is empowered to grant interim relief by exercising powers conferred under Sections 94(e) and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Supreme Court in Ramchand and Sons Sugar Mills v. Kanailal Bhargava AIR 1966 SC 1897, had stated that inherent powers of the Court are in addition to and supplementary to the powers expressly conferred under the Code of Civil Procedure.

 In Cotton Corporation of India Limited Vs. United Industrial Bank Limited and Others, , the Apex Court held that inherent power of the Court u/s 151 of the CPC extends to grant of injunctions beyond those provided under Order 39, Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure.