A.

HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF THE INJUNCTION

An Injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain

from doing, any particular act.

The remedy of injunction is provided as a statutory relief in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter, ‘CPC’).

History

 The law of injunction in India has its origin in the Equity Jurisprudence of England
from which we have inherited the present administration of law.
 England too in its turn borrowed it from the Roman Law wherein it was known as
Interdict. The Roman Interdicts were divided in three parts, prohibitory, restitutory and
exhibitory
 Origin and Formulation:
o The earliest form of the interdict was expressed as "I Forbid you to use
violence, you must produce, you must restore" in Latin: "Vim fieri veto,
exhibeas, restituas."
o This evolved into three distinct forms: prohibitory, restitutory, and exhibitory.
 Emergence of Courts of Chancery:
o The Court of Chancery likely originated with the decree of Edward III.
o Initially, Common Law Courts had limited jurisdiction, leading to petitions to
the King for relief.
o Matters termed "matters of grace" were referred to the Chancellor, who was
responsible for the King's conscience.
o Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery became firmly established during the
reign of Edward IV.
 Role of Injunctions in Equity:
o Injunctions, likened to the "Strong arm" of Courts of Equity, commanded acts
essential to justice or restrained acts contrary to equity and good conscience.
o They were essential remedies for enforcing judgments in Courts of Equity.
 Early Instances and Opposition:
o Possibly the first instance of an injunction was during the reign of Henry I.
o However, the granting of injunctions faced fierce opposition from Judges of
Common Law Courts, particularly during the reigns of Richard II, Henry IV,
Henry V, and Henry VI.
o Petitions to the King, led by the House of Commons, complained of
encroachment by Courts of Chancery on the jurisdiction of Common Law
Courts.
 Resolution of Conflict:
o Notable opposition occurred during the reign of James I, exemplified in the
Earl of Oxford's Case.
o The matter was eventually resolved in favor of the Chancellor, sustaining the
jurisdiction of Courts of Chancery to grant injunctions.
  Impeachment and Legal Challenges:
o During the reign of Henry VII, Cardinal Wolsey faced impeachment for
judicial corruption and alleged misconduct in issuing injunctions.
o His actions were criticized for depriving subjects of their lawful possessions
and manipulating legal processes.
 Establishment of Injunctions in Equity:
o Despite initial opposition, Courts of Equity firmly established the remedy of
injunctions, applying them where parties were entitled to relief based on
equity and good conscience.

DYNAMIC INJUNCTION
INTRODUCTION

The proliferation of digital technology has revolutionized the way we consume and
distribute content. However, with this advancement, digital piracy has also become a
pervasive issue, posing significant challenges to creators, copyright holders, and the
entertainment industry at large. In India, combating digital piracy has been a priority,
and one of the legal tools that has gained prominence in recent years is the concept of
dynamic injunctions.

Dynamic injunctions refer to an injunction order which not only requires the intermediary to
take down existing illegal content, (as is traditionally the scope of an injunction) but also all
mirror variations of the infringing website created exclusively for the purpose of evading the
court order.

OR
A judicial authority grants an injunction with regard to certain specific domain names that are
guilty of hosting infringing content. Even as the original websites are taken down, mirror
websites quickly and easily appear under other domain names and thus remain unaffected by
the original injunction order.

A dynamic injunction allows a right-holder to approach the courts to extend the main
injunction order against all mirror websites providing access to the same infringing online
locations that were the subject of the main injunction

The Court of Justice of the European Union(“CJEU”) in the case of L’oreal v. Ebay first
evolved dynamic injunctions as a solution to this problem of injunction orders being rendered
futile due to the ease of further infringements. In this case, the Court dealt with infringements
of L’oreal’s trademark on Ebay. The Court ordered Ebay “to take measures which contribute
not only to bringing to an end to infringement of those rights by users of that marketplace, but
also to prevent further infringements of that kind.”

Similar injunction orders requiring intermediaries to not only take down existing illegal
content but also further identical infringing content on their platforms have been passed by
Courts in UK and Singapore while dealing with widespread copyright and trademark
infringement on the internet.
ANALYSIS

In India, the concept of dynamic injunctions was specifically referred to and adopted in the
case of UTV Software Communication Ltd. In this case, UTV approached the Court for an
injunction order to prevent websites such as F Movies from displaying their copyrighted
content on their platforms. The Court passed an injunction order requiring ISPs to not only
disable access to the existing infringing websites but also any alphanumeric/re-directs/mirror
variations” of the infringing website.

Eros International Media Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, the Delhi High Court
granted a dynamic injunction against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL), a major Indian
telecommunications company. BSNL was ordered to block access to infringing websites in
real-time. This decision emphasized the importance of involving internet service providers
(ISPs) in the fight against digital piracy through dynamic injunctions.

Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. UOI & Others

The case of Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. UOI & Others involved Disney seeking a dynamic
injunction against multiple websites that were illegally streaming its content. The Bombay
High Court granted the injunction, recognizing that it was essential to keep pace with the
constantly changing tactics employed by infringing websites. This case further solidified
thelegal basis for dynamic injunctions in India.

D. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. & Ors. v. Wunderbar Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. The
Madras High Court issued a dynamic injunction against a varied range of websites and ISPs
involved in the piracy of the movie “Kaala. The court emphasized the need for an evolving
and flexible approach to tackling digital piracy, emphasizing the dynamic nature of the
problem.

Should IPR Holders Approach Courts to Get Injunction Orders Modified against
Further Infringements

 The Federal Court of Australia in Roadshow Films Pty Limited v Telstra Corporation
Ltd held that the injunction order cannot directly apply to future infringements which
may take place. The IPR holder would need to get the injunction order modified by
filing an application before the Court to apply to mirror websites which might be
created in the future. The rationale used by the Court in this case was that the IPR
holders and the intermediaries cannot be entrusted with the duty of adjudicating
whether a site is a mirror website or not.
 In Indian High Courts, Registrars are not merely administrative officers, but also
responsible for a number of judicial functions as well, especially to monitor the
compliance with the Court’s orders. Thus, while the Court is not dealing with the
issue, the Registrar must be approached to modify the injunction order. This approach
in UTV has been approved and followed in some other judgements by the Delhi High
Court as well, like Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd v Five Desi and HT
Media Limited case.
  The solution of approaching the Joint Registrar serves the purpose of saving judicial
time as the High Court does not need to deal with the same matter over and over
again. However, the policy rationale of saving IPR holders the burden of approaching
the Court repeatedly for the same infringement is overlooked under this solution; This
is because even obtaining an order from the Joint Registrar is a time-consuming
process given the pressure on Courts.
 Additionally, the infringing content in mirror websites will still be accessible for a
significant period (until the Registrar is satisfied that there is a mirror website) which
makes the injunction order ineffective. Thus, following the Australian approach
defeats the very purpose of a dynamic injunction – to prevent the IPR holder from
having to repeatedly approach the Courts with respect to the same infringing content.
It is therefore suggested that the need to approach the Registrar should be done away
with.
 The failsafe in this scenario is that, if the IPR holder or the intermediary act in bad
faith by taking down content which are not mirror websites, the Court can always use
its power under its contempt jurisdiction to take exemplary action to deter further
action in bad faith.
 The Court should allow the domain holder whose content may be blocked under a
particular injunction to be able to approach it under its contempt jurisdiction.
 The Court would penalize the intermediary and the IPR holder if it finds that the
content taken down by the intermediary was independently generated and was not
identical to the specific infringing content against which the Court had granted the
injunction.
 This should act as an effective deterrent to prevent the misuse of the Court’s dynamic
injunction.

Who should bear the burden of identifying infringing content?

 Since dynamic injunctions require the taking down of mirror websites, the question
that needs to be answered is – who should identify the infringing content? Websites,
IPR holder or the intermediary which hosts the particular content?
 The CJEU in Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et
éditeurs, SCRL (SABAM) has held that the IPR holder has the burden of
identification of content, not the intermediary.
 Indian Courts, have followed the approach of the CJEU, by placing the burden of
identification on the IPR holder, either by requiring the IPR holder to file an affidavit
before the Joint Registrar (see UTV) or by notifying the intermediary directly about
the mirror websites. (Living Media) This position has been adopted by Indian Courts
without sufficient consideration given to the matter.
 It fails to take into account the developments in technology on part of the
intermediaries. Platforms such as YouTube, Google and Facebook monitor their
platforms in any case for illegal content.
 Since technological knowhow is available to the intermediaries, a Court is
predisposed to order these platforms to use technology to monitor for a specific
identified content and take it down. Placing the burden on IPR holders is unfair
because they do not have the technical prowess of the intermediaries, thus making it
far more difficult and inefficient for them to develop the means of monitoring.
  Hence, as the Polish and French Courts decreed, the burden should be placed on the
party which can most easily solve the problem, i.e., the intermediaries. The
aforementioned approach has been criticized for preventing the growth of new
intermediary platforms, because monitoring can be prohibitively expensive.
 While there are no perfect solutions to the problem, one way of addressing the
problem would be by requiring the IPR holder to bear the cost of the monitoring
technology, if the platforms do not possess the same. Such a requirement would
enable the smaller intermediary platforms to grow and develop, while also weeding
out IPR infringing content

Benefits and Challenges of Dynamic Injunctions

Benefits:

1. Adaptability: They can adapt to changing circumstances and tactics used by

infringing websites, ensuring that copyright holders can effectively block access to
pirated content.

2. Efficiency: Dynamic injunctions enable prompt action against infringing websites,

preventing further financial losses to copyright owners.

3. Comprehensive Relief: They provide comprehensive relief by targeting not only

infringing websites but also ISPs that facilitate access to such websites.

Challenges:
1. Technical Expertise: The implementation of dynamic injunctions requires technical
expertise to identify and block infringing websites effectively.

2. Over blocking: There is a risk of over blocking, where legitimate websites may
inadvertently be blocked due to similarities in domain names or IP addresses.

3. Jurisdictional Issues: Some infringing websites operate from jurisdictions that may
not cooperate with Indian courts, making enforcement challenging.

JOHN DOE
INTRODUTION

A John Doe order is a type of pre-infringement injunction used to safeguard the creator's
intellectual property rights in artistic works such as movies and songs. The Rolling Anton
Pillar, Anton Pillar, or Ashok Kumar order is another name for the John Doe order.

The concept of a John Doe order was developed by the Court of Queen's Bench in the United
Kingdom as an extraordinary equitable remedy in which an injunction order is issued against
an unknown defendant, allowing the plaintiff to search and seize the infringer's premises with
the goal of preserving evidence that might be destroyed.
In India, intellectual property rights have been recognised to protect the rights of those who
invest in research and development, and the government has enacted various laws to protect
the rights of investors and researchers, including the Copyrights Act of 1957 and the Patent
Act of 1970. However, these laws are insufficient to address conflicts of interest in matters
involving trademarks, copyright infringement, and personal privacy, among other things. The
emergence and acknowledgment of intellectual property rights have prompted Indian courts
to intervene in situations of copyright infringement. One notable result of such efforts is the
John Doe order.

ANALYSIS

John Doe Orders in India

Order 30 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that if a petitioner has reason to
believe that his or her information will be used to infringe on copyrights, or if he or she has
reason to believe that his or her works will be copied for financial gain, he or she may
petition the court for a John Doe order.

Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court has the
authority to issue a John Doe order by issuing an injunction order.

In Delhi High Court, Taj Television Ltd. & Anr. vs. Rajan Mandal & Ors, The first ex-
parte interim order was issued, allowing the plaintiff to search and seize the equipment and
gadgets of unknown defendants, kicking off the jurisprudence of issuing orders against
unknown defendants, which is known as John Doe's/ Ashok Kumar's order.

This case gave John Doe orders in India due recognition, and since then, other courts have
utilised similar principles to defend the rights of intellectual property creators.

In Delhi High Court, ESPN Software v Tudu Enterprises , The use of the John Doe order is
not limited to the media business; it has spread to other fields as well. One example is when a
court orders the seizure of counterfeit products in the possession of an unknown person for
infringement of the plaintiff's trademark and copyright.

The John Doe order is based on several instances in which a court must issue such orders
even before an infringement occurs. It is done in the form of a Quia Timet injunction to
preserve the plaintiff's rights and to prevent threatening or imminent unjust acts by an
unknown defendant. In India, the John Doe order has not been extended to include violations
of intellectual property rights. People are unaware that it exists, even though it was already
included in our criminal laws to safeguard intellectual property infringement.

Conditions to pass John Doe Order

Order 39, regulations 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), coupled with S. 151
of the CPC and the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 related to permanent
injunctions, are used by Indian courts to issue John Doe orders. There are some requirements
that must be met in order for the Court to issue a John Doe order.

1. A prima facie case must be established by the plaintiff(s).

 2. The plaintiff(s) must also show that if the John Doe order is not passed, he or she will
suffer real or probable damage or irreparable losses.
3. The plaintiff should win on the balance of convenience.

In Supreme court of India, Laxmikant vs. Patel vs. Chetanbhat Shah and Anrwherein the
Supreme Court held in no uncertain terms that a person may sell his goods or deliver his
services under a trading name or style that, with the passage of time, may acquire a reputation
or goodwill and may become a property to be protected by the Courts, while considering a
plea of passing off and grant of an ad interim injunction.

It was decided that a rival who starts selling goods or services under the same name or
imitates the name injures the business of the person who owns the property in that name. It
was held that in the world of business, honesty and fair play are and should be the basic
policy, and that when a person adopts or intends to adopt a name in connection with his
business or services that already belongs to someone else, it causes confusion and has the
potential to divert the customers and clients of someone else to himself, causing injury.
Media Industry

In Singham case, though no actual infringement had taken place, apprehending copies of
movie being made and sold/distributed in the form of DVDs/CDs in the market and/or shown
on TV by cable operators, interim applications were filed for injunction to prevent piracy and
loss of revenue to the plaintiff. In this case, the Delhi High Court on plaintiff establishing
three basic ingredients of prima facie case, imminent danger, and balance of convenience
passed John Doe order restraining all defendants and other unknown persons constituting part
of the same class from distributing, displaying, duplicating, uploading, downloading or
exhibiting the movie in any manner. Eventually, several Indian ISP‟s were contacted to block
access to several file sharing websites.

USA

In the United States, these orders are useful in combating bootlegging operations because the
public face of the operation often changes from venue to venue.41 Applicability of such
orders is not merely restricted to intellectual property regime but has been expanded to
include within its realm different kinds of situations and offences. Suits have been instituted
for bank frauds, usage of malicious software and unauthorized interception of electronic
communications wherein John Doe orders have been passed and assistance is taken from
Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) for execution and enforcement of orders.

CONCLUSION

Although the John Doe order appears to be in the correct path from a security standpoint, its
fundamental goal must be protected. The basic goal of the injunction should not be altered by
a vague injunction, as this can be an abuse of the legal process, and this type of general and
vague anticipatory injunction should never be issued. To preserve the public's interest, the
breadth and scope of such directives should be clearly defined to prevent misuse.

In India, the use of John Doe orders has resulted in an unusual increase in knowledge and a
sense of protection among Intellectual Property owners. The main point of the John Doe
order in front of the court of law is that what if the unidentified defendants are: unaware of
such orders or unwilling to follow such orders or avoids and prefers to continue with such
infringement even after that, then what is the point of having served such orders as it will be
completely useless if the ultimate goal of having IPR protection.

MAREVA INJUNCTION and ANTON PILLER ORDER

INTRODUCTION

INDIAN LAW
In India, in cases relating to Intellectual property, the laws enacted are normally from The
Copyright Act of 1957, The Trademarks Act of 1999, The Patents Act of 1970, The Design
Act of 2000, The Geographical Indications of Goods Act of 1999, The Protection of Plant
Varieties and Farmers Rights Act of 2001, The Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-
Design Act of 2000 and The Biological Diversity Act of 2002. The Acts provide a necessary
remedy for an injunction against the infringement in their respective area of law. The IPR
regime is backed by core statutes of procedural nature like Crpc and CPC. The principles laid
down in the English precedents are frequently relied upon in Indian courts. Thus, the use of
both the Anton Piller order and Mareva injunction in Indian courts is still in its initial stage.

The high courts of Indian Jurisdiction have found that the merit of a particular case has
actually enabled the parties to have a need for this kind of injunction in their cases. The
interlocutory injunction in Indian courts is granted under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908
which are normally used in all courts of civil jurisdiction in India. In the case of the
production of documents, the Court may summon the attendance of the witness to either
produce the document or to give evidence in court under Order 16 Rule 6 and 7 of CPC,
1908. A search warrant in India is granted under Sections 93-95 of the CrPC,1973. and are
applicable to all courts of criminal jurisdiction in India.

THE MAREVA INJUNCTION

The Mareva injunction is a part of a temporary injunction or a perpetual injunction. This

injunction is an unusual form of an interlocutory injunction that is intended to restrain the
defendant from disposing of the assets which may become a piece of the necessary evidence
to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim or from getting rid of it from the court’s Jurisdiction.

THE ANTON PILLER ORDER

The Anton Piller Order is for an authorized entry and inspection which has some similarities
to search warrants in India but is different in practicality. The Anton Piller Order allows the
authorized entry and inspection of the plaintiff by the defendant. Entry without the
defendant’s permission is by law trespass. But the defendant is so ordered by the court in
personam to permit the plaintiff with the result that, if he does not do so then he is in
contempt of court. In cases where certain evidences are recovered then they are accompanied
by a Mareva injunction to be seized.

CONDITIONS THAT NEED TO BE SATISFIED

• FOR MAREVA INJUUNCTION

1. In cases in which a Mareva injunction is to be granted by the court in Intellectual property
cases certain conditions are to be satisfied, they are:-
 o Proof of damage is not necessary for granting the injunction if it has proved that there
is an infringement of a right
o That there will be irreparable harm or a chance for further damages.
o That the is a great probability that the defendant continues the infringement.
o That this is just not a simple rivalry matter, and a Prima facie case exists.
o That the plaintiff should be able to locate the assets to enforce any further final
judgment.
o The injunction is on the principle of equity and not as a matter of right (Discretionary)

• FOR ANTON PILLER ORDER

2. In cases where an Anton Piller Order is to be issued there are certain matters that are
ascertained, these are as follows; –
o The plaintiff must be able to show that there is a prima facia
o The plaintiff must demonstrate that he/she has suffered and that it is likely that
o they will face even further irreparable damage in the event that an order is not
granted.
o There ought to be clear evidence of the facts that the defendant has in his possession
some incriminating evidence and that there is an actual real possibility that one or
many of them will be destroyed in due course.

SOME NOTABLE CASES

In a 1983 case WEA Records Ltd v. Visions Channel 4 Ltd. The court said that following the
case of Hallmark Cards Inc v. Image Arts Ltd, the Court ordered that once the Anton Piller
order has been executed, it is a spent force and hence it can’t be set aside. The only remedy in
such a case is to claim damages as provided in the counter undertaking and not by setting
aside the order The European Court of Human Rights in Chappell v. United Kingdom. The
Anton Piller order was granted by the court and had been executed by the bath police, the
legality of the order was challenged in the case and the court ordered that the order will stand
and that in case of misuse the plaintiff should pay for the damages caused. The Supreme
court of India in M/S Gujarat bottling Co.Ltd. & Ors v. The Coca-Cola Co. & Ors said that
relief by interlocutory injunction should be granted for mitigating the risk of injustice to the
plaintiff during the trial where there is the uncertainty of the existence of the legal right and
the alleged violation. The courts must weightage the balance of convenience and use the
court’s discretion in the matter to decide whether there is an actual need for the order at hand.

CONCLUSION
The applicability and need of these two types of injunctions in India are that it is becoming an
eminent matter in the cyber world to secure and protect the content of the maker, thus it is
natural to get a remedy for infringement in the IPR matters. The most common tendency in
the legal world in India is that by the time the final order is passed in a matter the actual life
situation would have seen a drastic change, this could happen within a second or a year, and
the entire situation may or might not change. In cases of any procedural law or penal law,
there is a need to be more stringent measure in the common space to ensure certain standards
of legal efficiency, the growth of IPR in the 21st century itself point to the growth of the law
for further and better protection for the people who use the benefit of the cyber world as a
day-to-day matter in their life.
 TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

What is a temporary injunction

Temporary Injunction
 is a provisional remedy that aims to preserve the subject matter in its standing state
 granted by the Court when the Defendant is likely to cause a legal injury to the
property of the Plaintiff or
 threatens the Plaintiff to dispossess the property or
 creates a thirty party interest in the property, then in such situation

CHARACTERESTICS

1. It is an interim remedy that is raised to reserve the subject matter or maintain the
status quo of the property in dispute
2. It may be granted on an interlocutory application at any stage of the suit
1. “interlocutory” means not that decides the cause but which only settles some
intervening matter relating to the cause. After the suit is instituted by the
plaintiff and before it is finally disposed off, the court may make interlocutory
orders as may appear to the court to be just and convenient.
3. Part of a supplemental proceeding Sec 94 CPC

PRE-CONDITIONS
Prima-facie case – On the face of it, the plaintiff must show the existence of a legal right in
his favour. The plaintiff should come to Court with clean hands and no material facts are
suppressed.

Martin Burn Ltd vs. R.N.Banerjee 1958 AIR 79 SCR 514

Prakash Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002 (4) Civil L.J.71 (P.H.)
The Court has explained that Prima Facie does not mean that a Plaintiff/Applicant should
have a full proof case in his favour which will succeed in all probabilities. It means that the
plaintiff/applicant has a case which cannot be rejected summarily or dismissed out right. It
raises consideration which can be considered on merits.

Irreparable Injury: Further, the applicant must satisfy the court that he will suffer
irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.
The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff needs to be protected from the consequences of
apprehended injury. An injury will be viewed as irreparable wherein there exists no certain
monetary standard for calculating damages.

Balance of Convenience
In other words, the court must be satisfied that the comparative mischief, hardship or the
inconvenience which is likely to be caused to the applicant by refusing injunction will be
greater than that which is likely to be caused to the opposite party by granting it. Dalpat
Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719

Legal framework
Sec 37
Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specific time, or until the further
order of the court, and they may be granted at any stage of a suit, and are regulated by the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).

Interlocutory Applications
“Interlocutory application” means an application to the Court in any suit, appeal or
proceeding already instituted in such Court, other than a proceeding for execution of a decree
or order.

The Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, Chapter I – Preliminary – Rule 2 (J) defines:
Sec 94 - Temporary injunction as a part of supplemental proceedings

Order 30 Rule 1
Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.—
Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise—
o that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or
alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or
o that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a
view to defrauding his creditors,
o that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the
plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit

Rule 2 order 39
Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach of contract
In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury
of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time
after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court
for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or
injury complained

Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction. R 2A

In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule
2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made,
o the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit
or proceeding is transferred, may order
o the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and
may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding
three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.

A temporary injunction, may as it very often does, consists of two stages,

o one granted without finally disposing of the application for injunction to operate
immediately till the disposal of the said application and
o the other granted while finally disposing of the main application to ensure
generally till the disposal of the suit.
o While the former is generally classed as ad interim injunction, the latter is
generally called “temporary injunction”.
2A.2. No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the
end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold
and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured
party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.

Ex-parte injunction –Ad interim injunction

R3: Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party.

The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the
injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the
application for the same to be given to the opposite party:

some conditions

Duties of the Court and applicant

The Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction
would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant.
a. to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered post, immediately after the
order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction
together with—
1. a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application;
2. a copy of the plaint; and
3. copies of documents on which the applicant, relies, and to file, on the day on
which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day,
an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent.

Microsoft Corporation v. Dhiren Gopal and Ors., [2010 (42) PTC 1 (Del)],
the judge himself was of the opinion that once an ex-parte injunction is granted by the
Court after that an ex-parte injunction vacated or a decision on the application on merits
by the court becomes a Herculean task for the other party. It has become a routine
process. Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, deciding applications on merits after
hearing the parties in such cases is a rare phenomenon. Except this, excuses are
used to seek adjournments once a party gets ex parte injunction.

KENT RO SYSTEM LTD. & ANR. versus GATTUBHAI & ORS. 2022
Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors 2011

Guidelines
 Courts have to be very careful in imposing ex parte orders. If an injunction has been
granted on the basis of false pleadings or forged documents (which is very often the
case in India) courts must impose costs on the litigants.
 Courts should give short notice to the Defendants and hear both parties before passing
ex parte interim orders since the experience has been that once granted these orders
cause havoc and getting them modified is next to impossible.
 In an exceptional case where the court has to grant an ex-parte injunction it must
record in the order that if the suit is dismissed the petitioner will have to pay full
restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits.
 If ex parte order is granted then all endeavours should be made to dispose the
application for injunction as expeditiously as possible, preferably as soon as the
 defendant appears in court or another option available is, to limit the life of the ex
parte order for a week so as to prevent any incentive of prolonging the matter on the
plaintiff’s part.

Appeal against an order for temporary injunction

In Yenamandala Venkatarayudu vs. Vegi Ananthalaxmi

“Where an appeal is preferred against the order passed by the trial Court in an interlocutory
application either granting or refusing to grant temporary injunction pending disposal of the
suit, it is not desirable ordinarily for the appellate Court to grant ex parte interim injunction
against the respondent in the appeal or to pass ex parte order staying the operation of the
injunction order passed by the trial Court unless there are special circumstances warranting
the appellate Court to do so. Duty is cast on the appellate Court to consider well whether it
is absolutely necessary to pass such ex parte injunction or ex parte stay order. The appellate
Court should not pass such ex parte orders in a routine way.”

Vacation of injunction
R 4: Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside
Any order for an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or set aside by the Court,
on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order:
Proviso –I
Provided that if in an application for temporary injunction or in any affidavit
supporting such application, a party has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in
relation to a material particular and the injunction was granted without giving notice
to the opposite party, the Court shall vacate the injunction unless, for reasons to be
recorded, it considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interests of justice.

PERMANENT INJUNCTION
A permanent injunction, popularly referred to as perpetual injunction, can be granted by the
court by passing a decree made after hearing and upon the merits of the case. Once such
decree is passed, the defendant is permanently prohibited from the assertion of a right, or
from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff . The
legal provision for perpetual injunctions is not encompassed within the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 but rather falls under the purview of the Specific Relief Act of 1963[Section
37(2),38].

In legal proceedings, the issuance of a decree by a judge that permanently restrains an

individual is typically accompanied by the pursuit of a perpetual injunction. The supreme
court laid down the rule of when a permanent injunction cannot be granted in K Venkata Rao
vs Sunkara Venkata Rao It held that “a permanent injunction cannot be granted when
alternative efficacious relief is available in any other usual mode or proceedings”

MANDATORY INJUNCTION

This compels an individual to undertake a specific action and is mentioned in Section 39 of

the Specific Relief Act. There are two distinct categories of mandatory injunctions, namely
restorative and enforcing. The former pertains to the restoration of the status quo by
compelling the defendant to undertake a specific action, while the latter involves the
performance of a positive act, typically on a continuous basis.
According to Lord Upjohn in the case of Redland Bricks v Morris (1970) the grant of a
mandatory injunction is contingent upon the plaintiff’s ability to demonstrate a high
likelihood, based on factual evidence, that significant harm will be inflicted upon them in the
future. The exercise of jurisdiction should be done with restraint and careful consideration,
but when appropriate, it should be done without hesitation.