Topic
Balance of convenience is a legal principle in Indian civil procedure used to determine whether interim relief, such as a temporary injunction, should be granted by weighing which party would suffer greater harm if the relief is granted or denied.
The Delhi High Court held that a claim of commercial disparagement succeeds only if the advertisement conveys a false or misleading overall impression to the average consumer, not when it isolates truthful statements about ingredients. The ruling clarifies the standard for comparative ads affecting FMCG brands and advertisers.
Bombay High Court holds that Indian courts can grant interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act even for foreign-seated arbitrations, where assets are located in India. The ruling clarifies that enforceability concerns justify such relief, emphasizing proportionality and prevention of asset diminution.
The Bombay High Court ruled that registering a development agreement alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case for interim relief under Section 9. The petitioner must demonstrate concrete readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations, reinforcing that procedural formality cannot substitute for substantive performance capacity. This sets a critical precedent for developers and cooperative societies in redevelopment disputes.
The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that courts must not interfere with arbitral interim orders unless they are perverse, capricious, or demonstrate manifest illegality. This ruling strengthens the autonomy of arbitral tribunals in complex slum redevelopment disputes, ensuring that balance-of-convenience assessments remain within the arbitrator’s domain unless grossly flawed.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies that clerical errors in labeling an injunction as 'permanent' under Order 39 CPC do not invalidate the interim relief granted, and documents not formally marked as exhibits may still be considered if they substantiate the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable injury. This empowers litigants to pursue substantive justice despite technical flaws in pleading or evidence presentation.
Bombay High Court holds that interim relief under Section 9 cannot override third-party operations already underway; damages suffice where monetary compensation is adequate.
Uttarakhand HC clarifies that temporary injunctions under Order 39 CPC cannot be granted without express analysis of the three mandatory factors. Essential reading for civil practitioners.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that temporary injunctions must be limited to the disputed land portion, not the entire property, emphasizing balance of convenience and irreparable loss.