In this article, Syeda Muneera Ali discusses the meaning of temporary and permanent injunction. This article explores the definitions of temporary and permanent injunction, the relevant provisions relating to temporary and permanent injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This article also points out the differences between temporary and permanent injunction. This article has been further updated by Soumyadutta Shyam.

Introduction

An injunction is a preventive relief granted by the court to restrain the commission of a wrongful act. The expression “injunction” comes from the Latin term “injungere” which translates into “to enjoin”. The word entered the English language in the 15th Century, it was used to mean an authoritative order. Slowly, the word acquired a legal meaning, and it was specifically used to refer to a court order. Essentially, the objective of an injunction is to reinstate the infringed rights of a party and to prevent further infringement. 

Meaning of injunction

An injunction can be defined as a discretionary relief granted by the Court, ordering a party to refrain from doing a specific act or from continuing to do it. The relief granted in injunction, is preventive in character. The Court may grant injunctions to enforce and protect the rights of the parties and prevent the breach of obligations that are in existence. The provisions relating to injunctions, are contained in, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and The Specific Relief Act, 1963. 

The term “injunction” has been defined in different ways. In Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England (Vol.6), injunction has been elucidated as, “a judicial process, by which one has invaded or is threatening to invade the rights, legal or equitable, of another is restrained from continuing or commencing such wrongful act.” Lord Halsbury defined injunction as, “A judicial process whereby a party is ordered to refrain from doing or to do a particular act or thing.” Thus, injunction is a judicial order in which the relief sought from the Court is the restraint or prevention of a wrongful act.

An injunction can be directed against individuals, public bodies and the State as well. An injunction can only be issued against a party to the suit and not against a third party. Not abiding by an injunction may be prosecutable as contempt of court .

The injunction is granted at the discretion of the court. The criteria for permission for an injunction varies in each case. Injunctions are preventive in nature. Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 sets out that, this preventive relief can be allowed at the option of the court. There are two types of injunctions, which are:- 

1.  Temporary Injunction 
2.  Permanent Injunction

Temporary injunction

A temporary injunction is an interim relief, the purpose of which is to safeguard the subject-matter in issue in the suit in its existing condition, without the defendant’s intrusion or threat. The main objective of a temporary injunction is to protect the interests of an individual or institution, until the final judgement is delivered. A temporary injunction, if allowed, stays in effect for a prescribed term, or till the Court considers suitable.

The procedure for granting temporary injunctions are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 under Order 39.

Section 37(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 sets out that temporary injunctions are those that stay in force till a stipulated period, or till further order of the court is passed. These can be allowed at any point during the suit.

Provisions relating to Temporary Injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure,1908

Order 39 Rule 1 to 5 deal with Temporary Injunctions.

Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted (Rule 1) 

As per Rule 1 of Order 39, if in any suit, it is established through affidavit or in any other way:-

• A property in issue in a suit is in peril of being misused, destroyed or transferred by any party in the suit, or illegitimately transferred in implementation of a decree; or
• The defendant urges or wants to convey or transfer his property with an intention to cheat his creditors; or
• The defendant urges to dislodge the plaintiff or cause harm to the plaintiff in regard to any property in issue in the suit, the Court can by order allow a temporary injunction to prevent that act, or promulgate any other order with the object of staying or impeding the misusing, damaging, transfering, sale or discharging the property or dislodging the plaintiff or causing damage to the plaintiff in regard to any property in issue in a suit as the court deems fit, till the discharge of the suit or additional orders. 

Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach (Rule 2)

Rule 2 of Order 39 states that:-

• In any suit for preventing the defendant from committing a breach of contract or damage of any type, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff can at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either prior to or after the judgement, apply to the court for a temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from perpetrating the breach of contract or damage objected or any breach of contract of a similar type emerging out of the same contract or regarding the same property or right.
• The Court can by order allow that injunction, on such conditions as to the time period of the injunction, maintaining an account, rendering security or alternatively as the court deems suitable.

The Court cannot frivolously direct a temporary injunction without due cause and consideration.

Consequence of non-compliance with an order of injunction (Rule 2-A)

When a party does anything in infringement of an injunction granted by the court, it is the duty of the Court to provide relief to a party in case of violation of its right in the exercise of its powers. The Court may either order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached or may order such person to be detained in civil prison. Attachment of property of the person for disobeying the injunction is not an essential condition for ordering the detention. The court may order both or any one of them. The penalty of imprisonment in the event of infringement of the order of an injunction of a court is to be passed additionally and not as an alternative of the punishment of attachment of property.

A person is liable to be proceeded against under Rule 2-A even if he was not personally a party to the suit, if he is shown to have been an agent or servant of the defendant and to have infringed the order of injunction despite the knowledge that there was such an order. The term ‘person’ used in Rule 2A of Order 39 of the CPC was employed comprehensively to designate every one in a group, defendant, his agent, servants and workman etc.

Before granting injunction, court has to provide notice to opposite party (Rule 3)

Rule 3 sets out that the court shall in all matters, except when it appears to the Court that the purpose of granting the injunction would be defeated because of delay, the Court may, before granting an injunction, send notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party. However, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, 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 to deliver to the opposite party a copy of the application for injunction together with the copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application, a copy of the plaint and copies of other documents on which the applicant relies.  

The applicant must file an affidavit stating that the copies of the aforementioned documents have been sent to the opposite party, either on the day on which the injunction is granted or the following day. 

Prior to granting an injunction the Court shall send notice, however concise it may be to the opposite party. 

Court to dispose of application for injunction within thirty days (Rule 3-A)

Rule 3A lays down that when an injunction has been allowed devoid of serving notice to the other party, the court will try to conclusively discharge the application in one month from the day on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable to do so, it will record reasons for such inability.

Order for injunction may be discharged, modified or set aside (Rule 4)

An order of injunction shall be disposed of, modified or set aside in conformance with the provisions of Rule 4. It says that any order for an injunction will be discharged, modified or cancelled by the court, if an application is submitted by any party aggrieved by that order. However, in case, in application for temporary injunction or in any affidavit in support of such application, if a party has knowingly made a false or misleading statement regarding a material particular and the injunction was granted without giving notice to the other party, the court will cancel the injunction except when, on account of causes to be noted, it deems that it is not essential to do so. However, when an order for injunction has been made subsequent to providing a party a chance of being heard, the order will not be discharged, modified or cancelled on the application of that party, other then when such discharging, modification or setting aside has been required by a alteration in the situation or until the court is contented that the order has given rise to unwarranted difficulty to the party.

Injunction to Corporation binding on its officers (Rule 5)

Rule 5 lays down that an injunction served to a Corporation is binding not just on the Corporation itself, but also on all members and officers of the corporation whose personal action it seeks to restrain.

When can temporary injunction be granted

A Temporary Injunction can be provided, conditional on three tests:-

• Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case?
• Whether the equilibrium of convenience is on the side of the plaintiff?
• Whether the plaintiff would bear irreparable injury, if the injunction is not allowed?

Example: ‘A’ is a businessman who owns a restaurant situated in Ghatkopar, in Mumbai, India. Near his restaurant, one of the nearby factory workers (‘B’) began dumping waste, which finally led to the food getting ruined. ‘A’ preferred a suit against ‘B’, in which the court allowed a temporary injunction that restrained ‘B’ from dumping waste in future.

These tests have been explained with the following illustrations:-

Prima facie case 

In order to grant an injunction, the Court must be satisfied that there exists a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. The term “prima facie” means at the first sight or on the first appearance or on the face of it, so far as it can be judged from the first disclosure. Prima facie case is a substantial question which needs investigation and decision on merits. In this example, it is clear that ‘A’ is facing a serious issue, as it consequently impacts his business. Thus, it is abundantly clear that allowing an injunction is necessary. In Martin Burn Ltd. vs. R.N Banerjee (1957), the Supreme Court observed that, in determining whether a prima facie case has been established, the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led, it is possible to arrive at the conclusion in question, and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on the evidence.

Balance of Convenience 

The phrase “Balance of Convenience” means the comparative inconvenience which may likely arise from the issuance of the injunction are lesser than one arising from withholding the injunction. In the example, the argument is that the plaintiff is incurring a damage, because of  which the decision may be in his favour. The waste dumped near the restaurant may give rise to an obnoxious smell and unhygienic conditions, thus, the customers may avoid the restaurant and the plaintiff may suffer financial damage on account of defendant’s action. Thus, it is evident that the balance of convenience is leaned in favour of the plaintiff. In Anwar Elahi vs. Vinod Misra (1995), the Delhi High Court said that for the grant of temporary injunction, the plaintiff has to establish that besides prima facie case, the balance of convenience also lies in his favour and if injunction is not granted, he will be suffering an irreparable loss and injury. Balance of convenience means that comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to arise from withholding the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it. In applying this rule, the court has to weigh the amount of substantial mischief that is likely to be done to the applicant if the injunction is denied and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted.

Irreparable injury, in case injunction is not allowed  

Irreparable injury means damages that may not be possible to be compensated in monetary terms. The word “Irreparable Injury” does not mean that there should be no possibility of repairing the injury. It just means that there exists no specific or fixed pecuniary standard for measuring damages. In the example, if the court would have refused the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, the food products in his restaurant would have perished, therefore negatively impacting his business and giving rise to immense loss. Thus, it is evident that the plaintiff would have sustained irreparable injury to his products. In Dinesh Mathur vs. O.P Arora & Ors. (1997), the Supreme Court observed that granting injunction is a matter of convenience. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury are triable issues and are required to be proved positively. It was observed in this case that the balance of convenience did not lie in issuing the ad interim injunction. Thus, the ad interim injunction was set aside.

Permanent injunction

A permanent injunction is made at the time of the final judgement, and thus, in most cases, lasts for a longer duration of time. In such matters, the defendant is permanently restricted from the commission of an act, or the omission of an act, that would harm the interests of the plaintiff.

Section 37(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 sets out that a permanent injunction can be exclusively allowed by the decree pronounced at the hearing and on the points of the case. This means, for attaining a permanent injunction, an ordinary suit should be preferred in which the right asserted by the plaintiff is evaluated on legal grounds and ultimately the injunction is allowed through a decree. A permanent injunction, thus conclusively determines the rights of parties, while a temporary injunction only provides interim relief. A permanent injunction prohibits the defendant from claiming a right or perpetrating an act that would be opposed to the interests of the plaintiff.

Conditions under which permanent injunction can be granted

Section 38 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 mentions the conditions in which Perpetual Injunctions may be allowed, these are:-

(1) A perpetual or permanent injunction can be allowed to the plaintiff to restrain the breach of a duty subsisting in his favour, it may be express or implied.

(2) When any such duty emerges from a contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions in Chapter II.

(3) When the defendant violates or intends to violate the plaintiff’s right to, or use of, property, the Court can grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases :

1. When the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
2. When there is no degree to determine the real damage affected, or probably will be caused, by the violation;
3. When the violation is such that compensation in money would not provide sufficient remedy;
4. When the injunction is essential to restrain multiple judicial proceedings.

Refusal of injunctive relief

Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 sets out the situations in which a permanent injunction cannot be allowed. These situations are as follows:-

1. To prevent anyone from executing a judicial proceeding pending at the initiation of the suit in which the injunction is requested, other than a situation where such prevention is essential to restrict multiplicity of proceedings.
2. To restrict anyone from initiating any proceeding in Court not subordinate to that from which injunction is requested.
3. To restrict anyone from applying to any legislative body.
4. To restrict anyone from initiating any criminal case. 
5. To restrict the breach of contract the execution of which could not be specifically implemented.
6. To restrict, on the basis of nuisance, an act that is not sufficiently apparent that it will be a nuisance.
7. To restrict a persisting breach in which the plaintiff has consented.
8. When an equally effective relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding, except in cases of breach of trust.
9. When the actions of the plaintiff or his agents have been such as to disqualify him to aid the Court.
10. When the plaintiff has no personal concern in the issue.

Main distinctions between permanent and temporary injunction

Grounds	Temporary injunction	Permanent injunction
1.Stage of the  suit	A temporary injunction is allowed for a stipulated term or as decided by the Court. It may be allowed at any stage of the suit.	A permanent injunction is allowed by the decree of the Court. It is allowed on the evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case.
2.Statutory       Provisions	Order 39 (Rules 1 to 5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regulates temporary injunction.	Permanent injunction is regulated by Sections 38 to 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
3. Nature	A temporary injunction is an interim relief i.e, it is temporary in nature. It is a temporary order, and not a permanent solution.	A permanent injunction deals with the finality of a judgement, thus providing a definite and permanent resolution of the matter.
4. Revocability	A temporary injunction, since provisional in character, can be reversed by the Court that grants the injunction order.	A permanent injunction is irrevocable by the Court that passes the order. However, it may be set aside by an appellate or higher Court.
5.Legal Mandate	A temporary injunction is simply an order by the Court.	A permanent injunction is a decree (i.e, an official order by a Court of law)

Important cases

Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (1961)

Facts

Here, the appellant and the respondent were engaged in a partnership business for mining coal and manufacturing cement. Subsequently, the partnership was dissolved in 1945. Afterwards, the appellant preferred a suit in front of the Subordinate Judge at Asansol for recovery of funds against the respondent. The respondent also presented a counter-suit at Indore for recovery of funds. The respondent also prayed for a stay on the suit before the judge at Asansol, but this was dismissed. When appealed before the Calcutta High Court, the prayer was again rejected and it was directed that the matter of jurisdiction must be discharged by the trial court. Subsequently, the respondent pleaded for injunction before Indore Court to restrict the proceedings in Asansol regarding the matter and this was allowed under Order 39 of the CPC. However, this was rejected when appealed to the High Court withholding that order of injunction. It was said that it could be made according to the inherent authority of the court as per  Section 151. Therefore, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the Court could pass an order of Injunction under Section 151 in the exercise of its inherent powers?

Judgement

The Supreme Court said that it should be noted that the plaintiff of the subsequent suit intended to prevent the other party from proceeding with his suit, this was unjustifiable under the general principles of law, when the previous suit had been filed with the competent Court. It was ruled that in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, a civil Court has the authority to allow an interim injunction, even though it is not within the scope of the provisions of Order 39.

Dalpat Kumar and Anr. vs. Prahlad Singh and Ors (1991)

Facts

The facts of the case were such that the first plaintiff asserted that he was in an agreement to buy a house, with the owner of the house (respondent). The respondent did not execute the sale even after entering into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff. He preferred a suit for specific performance for enforcement of the agreement of sale and a decree was passed ex parte. Subsequently, in 1983, the sale deed was ratified through the Court. After that the respondent’s wife instituted a suit as well as pleaded for temporary injunction from ejection. The trial Court dismissed the application for ad interim injunction that was affirmed by the High Court. In 1991, the High Court granted the interim injunction, which prevented the appellants from the possession of the house.

Issues

Whether the High Court made a mistake in allowing an interim injunction, while the suit was pending?

Judgement

The Supreme Court observed that injunction is a discretionary relief. The Court said that satisfaction of the condition that there is a prima facie case is not adequate to allow injunction. The equilibrium of convenience should be in support of granting injunction. Therefore, the court should exercise its judicial discretion while allowing or rejecting ad interim injunction pending the suit. The court should be vigilant before allowing the injunction and should observe the conduct of the party, the possible damages to either party and if the plaintiff would be sufficiently compensated if injunction is rejected.

It was further ruled that the High Court made a blatant mistake in arriving at the conclusion to grant the appeal. Thus, the order of the High Court was set aside.

Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das (1994)

Facts

In this case, the appellant was a domestic mutual fund company registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). In accordance with the SEBI (Mutual Fund) Regulations, the investment management company of the appellant was registered with SEBI on 5.11.1993. The appellant was evidently collecting money by misleading the public. Subsequently, a voluntary association filed a writ petition to restrain public shares from being issued.

Issues

• Whether the District Consumer Forum had jurisdiction to deal with the case?
• Whether ex parte injunction could be granted under the circumstances of the case?

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the case. It was observed by the Court in this case that ex parte injunction can be granted only under exceptional circumstances and only for a limited duration of time. General principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss should be considered by the Court. While granting an injunction, compliance with proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 is mandatory. The writ petition was thus dismissed.

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & Ors vs.Coca Cola Co. & Ors. (1995)

Facts

The facts of the case were that, on 20th September, 1993 , Gujarat Bottling Company (GBC) entered into an agreement with Coca Cola Company to bottle and distribute Thumbs Up, Maaza, Limca etc., whose trademarks were acquired by Coca Cola. According to the terms of the Contract,  GBC was prohibited from dealing with any other company during the subsistence of the contract. It was supposed to remain in effect till 1998, but could be terminated at the option of either party by sending a one year prior notice.

This contract was followed by another contract in 1994 for the purpose of registration under registered user agreement. One of the clauses of the contract reduced the duration of prior notice from 1 year to 90 days. In 1995, due to internal issues pertaining to the expansion of GBC, majority of the shares of the company were acquired by representatives of PepsiCo. The new owners  argued that the 1994 agreement superseded the 1993 agreement. They served a 90 day agreement for the termination of the 1993 agreement. They also started to deal with PepsiCo.

In January, 1995 Coca Cola filed a suit in the Bombay High Court seeking various reliefs. By the order dated 22nd February, 1995, a single judge declined the application for grant of interim injunction restraining GBC from dealing with the products and beverages of any brand other than Coca Cola. Afterwards, two appeals were filed against the order of the single judge before the Division Bench – One by GBC and the other by Coca Cola Co. An interim injunction was granted by the High Court restraining GBC from selling or dealing with products of any company other than Coca Cola.

Issues 

• Whether the 1994 agreement superseded the 1993 agreement?
• Whether the interim injunction granted by the High Court was valid?

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that the 1994 agreement cannot be construed as superseding the 1993 agreement and the notice of termination was not valid. The interim injunction granted by the High Court was justified in law. GBC cannot legally claim that the order of injunction to be set aside. It was observed, that the respondent must suffer the consequences of the failure of the effort and it cannot assail the interim injunction granted by the High Court by invoking the plight of the workmen who are employed in the bottling plants of GBC.

Kuldip Singh vs. Subhash Chander Jain and Ors. (2000)

Facts

In this case, the appellant submitted an application to the Municipal Corporation for granting licence to run a bakery. The complainants protested and then presented a suit requesting an injunction against the appellant restricting him from operating a “bhatti” or an oven. In the suit, the complainants also urged that the Municipal corporation should be restrained from granting the licence requested by the appellant. While the suit was before the Court, the licence was given by the Municipal Corporation to the appellant. The Court passed an order of injunction restricting the appellant from operating the “bhatti”.

Issues

• Whether the complainants proved a case of actual injury or hazard to seek an injunction against the appellant as well as the Municipal Corporation?

Judgement

The Supreme Court said that, in relation to the Municipal Corporation, the dismissal of the suit against it, was not challenged by the complainants by filing an appeal. Issuing licences is the statutory power of the Municipal Corporation. As the licence was already granted by the Municipal Corporation to the appellant, the trial Court was correct in holding that the complainants were free to approach the Municipal Corporation and request cancellation or restraining the renewal of the licence. If the Municipal Corporation denied relief to them, then they could prefer an appeal or approach the superior authorities.

Arvind Construction Co. Pvt Ltd. vs. Kalinga Mining Corporation and Others (2007)

Facts

The facts of the case were that a partnership firm acquired three mining leases between 1973-1980 from the State Government of Orissa. In 1991, the firm engaged in an agency agreement with the petitioner, for a period of ten years. The agreement was to expire on 31.03.2003. The petitioner forwarded an application as per Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in front of the District Court requesting an interim relief to allow it carry on mining and to restrict the respondent from intruding in it. The District Court, while entertaining the application, made an order directing the parties to maintain the status quo. The District Court was of the opinion that the status quo should be maintained until the disputes are referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent firm filed an appeal before the High Court of Orissa. The respondent contended that the agreement between the parties was actually an agency agreement. That agreement could not be specifically implemented. The High Court stated that the District Court made a mistake in passing an order to maintain the arrangement, because prima facie the agreement between the parties was not specifically enforceable as the clauses of the agreement had expired, it was not right to allow an interim order as passed by the District Court. Therefore, the High Court set aside the verdict of the District Court and rejected the application submitted by the petitioner as per Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was also observed that allowing the injunction for the petitioner would place the respondent in peril of being liable to prosecution.

Issues

• Whether the petitioner had a prima facie case for injunction ?
• Whether the High Court had made a mistake in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner as per Section 9 of the Act?

Judgment 

The Supreme Court stated that prima facie, it was not possible to say that the High Court was wrong in thinking that it may be a case where an injunction could not be granted in view of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was observed that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, prima facie does not seem to exclude the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 from operating in such a case. The contention that the authority under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is unassociated from the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is untenable. The Supreme declined to interfere with the order of the High Court and dismissed this appeal. 

Conclusion

An injunction is a preventive relief that attempts to balance the rights of both the parties. It endeavours to bring about a situation, where one party does not violate or intrude into the rights and privileges of the other party. In other words, the main objective of an injunction is to maintain status quo or prevent further infringement of rights. Although an injunction is not an independent relief, it is in many instances quite crucial for the preservation of rights. The decision whether to grant or refuse an injunction depends upon the discretion of the Court.

Injunctions may be temporary, when they are allowed while the outcome of the litigation is still to be determined. They are often granted to prevent the disposal or destruction of property involved in litigation. It is issued till the discharge of the suit or further orders of the Court. Injunction are permanent when an injunction is a necessary incident to the relief granted by the final judgement. Permanent injunctions can be granted only by decree after the hearing of the suit on merit.

Injunction is generally granted when any other remedy will not be sufficient and there will be irreparable loss if injunction is not granted. Injunctions may be granted to restrain various wrongful acts, such as; a breach of contract, the commission of a nuisance, an injury to property, wrongful dispossession from property and other wrongful acts. It is considered an equitable relief granted by the Court. While granting an injunction the Court generally considers the consequences to both parties, if injunction is issued and in case it is not allowed.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is a mandatory injunction?

Mandatory injunction is granted to prevent the breach of an obligation. It is granted when it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the Court is capable of enforcing. The Court may grant a mandatory injunction to prevent the breach of obligation complained of and also to compel the performance of and also to compel the performance of the requisite acts. Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides for mandatory injunction.

Which provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides punishment for disobedience of injunction?

Section 94(c) and Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for the punishment for disobedience or breach of an injunction.

Section 94(c) provides that in case of disobedience of an injunction, the Court may order the person guilty of such disobedience to be detained in civil prison and order his property to be attached and sold.

Rule 2-A of Order 39 provides that the Court may either order the person guilty of disobedience or breach of an injunction to be attached or may order such person to be detained in civil prison.

References

• Dr. Avtar Singh; Contract and Specific Relief; Eastern Book Company
• Dr. S.R Myneni; Code of Civil Procedure and Limitation Act; Asia Law House
• https://www.merriam-webstar.com/dictionary/injunction
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/injunction

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.