Types of Injunctions under the Indian Law

Injunction can be defined as a prohibitive write issued by a court of equity, this is done at the request of the party complainant, directed to a party defendant in the action, or to a party which is made defendant in the action. This letter forbids the person, or his servant/agent from commencing the act on his behalf respectively. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereafter, the Act) establishes the law of injunction, which is also governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in India.

Essentially there are two types of injunctions under the act:

  • Temporary Injunction
  • Perpetual/Permanent Injunction

There is a brief description about both type of injunctions below-

Temporary Injunction

The injunctions that are issued for a set period of time or until the court makes a decision on the case at hand. They can be obtained at any point throughout the trial and are governed by the 1908 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Sections mentioned below explain the process more effectively-

  • Section 94: This section allows the court to hold extra proceedings in order to keep the goals of justice from being defeated. A court may grant a temporary injunction and, in the event of disobedience, sentence the individual responsible to civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold, according to Section 94(c). The court has the authority under Section 94(e) of the Code to make interlocutory orders that it deems just and convenient.
  • Section 95: If the court determines that there were insufficient grounds for the injunction to be granted, or if the plaintiff loses the case, the court may award appropriate compensation to the defendant on his application for such compensation.
    • Rule 1- It contains the rules under which a temporary injunction can be issued.
    • Any property in question in a litigation is in risk of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party to the suit, or of being wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or of being squandered, damaged, or alienated by any party to the suit.
    • In order to cheat his creditors, the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property.
    • In connection to any property in issue in the complaint, the defendant threatens to depose the plaintiff or otherwise harm the plaintiff.
    • Rule 2- It states that an interim injunction may be given to prevent the defendant from breaching the contract or causing any other harm to the plaintiff.
    • Rule 3- It provides that before awarding an injunction to the plaintiff, the court must send a notice of application to the opposing party. However, if the court believes that the delay will contradict the injunction’s objective, it may refuse to deliver the notification.
    • Rule 4- It allows for the cancellation of a temporary injunction that has already been issued.
    • Rule 5- It asserts that an injunction against a corporation binds not just the corporation, but also all of the corporation’s members and executives whose personal actions the injunction seeks to restrain.

Permanent Injunction

The court can issue a permanent injunction by issuing a decision at the hearing and based on the merits of the case. Once such a decree is issued, the defendant is permanently barred from asserting a claim or committing an act that would be in violation of the plaintiff’s rights.

A permanent injunction is issued on the following basis-

  1. To the plaintiff in a lawsuit brought to prevent a breach of a responsibility owed to him, whether implicit or explicit.  In cases where such a duty comes from a contract, however, the court must follow the rules set forth in Chapter II of the Act.  Section 9 of Chapter II states that a person may seek contract remedies by arguing in his defence any of the grounds accessible to him under any legislation relating to contracts.
  2. The court may grant a permanent injunction in a case when the plaintiff infringes or threatens to infringe on the plaintiff’s right to or enjoyment of property:


  1. The plaintiff’s property is held in trust by the defendant.
  2. There are no criteria for determining the real harm inflicted by the invasion, or likely to be caused by it;
  3. The invasion is such that monetary compensation would be insufficient to provide adequate relief;
  4. The injunction is required to avoid a slew of judicial actions.

Mandatory Injunction

If the court determines that it is essential and within its power to force the performance of an act in order to avert a violation of an obligation, it may do so by issuing a mandatory injunction to the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to undertake the required acts.

The court can issue an injunction prohibiting you from doing specific things that the contract forbids you from doing. Even if it is unable to compel the defendant to perform the affirmative conditions of the contract, i.e. the clauses that require the defendant to do (perform) specified acts, the court may do so. However, whether the plaintiff has performed the terms of the contract binding on him or not is a reality. The plaintiff is barred from seeking such an injunction if he fails to perform.

An injunction can also be rejected on the following grounds-

  • To restrict a person from prosecuting a pending legal proceeding unless it is to avoid the proceeding being duplicated.
  • An injunction prevents a person from starting or litigating a legal action in a court where the injunction is requested from a lower court.
  • To prevent anyone from submitting an application to any legislative body.
  • To prevent someone from bringing or prosecuting a criminal case.
  • To prevent a breach of a contract whose execution is not particularly enforced (for example, a contract between a master and a servant requiring the servant to offer personal services to the master cannot be specifically enforced by either the master or the servant). As a result, an injunction cannot be obtained in this case.
  • To prohibit an act on the basis of nuisance when it is not sufficiently evident that it constitutes a nuisance.
  • To avoid a continued breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced, as the common rule is that acquiescence is the same as implied assent.
  • Except in the situation of a breach of trust, equally effective relief can almost always be achieved through any other common means.
  • When the plaintiff’s or his representatives have acted in a way that disqualifies him from receiving judicial aid.
  • When the plaintiff has no personal stake in the outcome of the case.

Leave a Reply