#Injunction

The Supreme Court ruled that a Gazette notification under the Wakf Act, 1954 creates a presumptive title to wakf property that becomes unchallengeable after the one-year limitation period. This restored a permanent injunction for the Telangana Wakf Board over Mafi Inam lands adjoining the Qutub Shahi Mosque, prevailing over later revenue records and pattadar passbooks.

The Orissa High Court ruled that Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act prevents an injunction restraining termination of a personal service contract, so the bank could not be barred from dismissing the senior employee. It also clarified that Article 227 cannot replace the statutory appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, limiting interim relief in employment termination disputes.

The Calcutta High Court issued a permanent injunction, holding that hotels must secure their own copyright licence to broadcast music in guest-room cable systems. Payment of cable subscription fees does not satisfy the statutory licence requirement, exposing hotels and operators to infringement liability.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that an executor’s rights to the deceased’s property vest immediately on death, even before probate. It also held that a will’s registration is irrelevant for granting an ad-interim injunction to preserve the property. Executors can therefore enforce claims and restrain third parties prior to probate.

Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside a First Appellate Court's order reversing a trial court's refusal of an injunction, emphasizing that appellate interference under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC requires reasoned analysis and adherence to procedural safeguards. The ruling clarifies the scope of appellate jurisdiction in injunction disputes involving property and registered wills.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside an appellate order restraining construction on joint land, ruling that the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to establish perversity in the trial court's findings. The ruling clarifies the limits of appellate jurisdiction under Order 43 CPC in property disputes involving co-sharers.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench quashed a trial court's rejection of a joint measurement application in a boundary dispute, holding that conflicting measurement reports necessitate joint measurement for accurate resolution. The ruling clarifies that such evidence collection is permissible even in suits for declaration and injunction, not just encroachment cases.

The Bombay High Court has directed trial courts to resolve pending injunction applications in commercial suits before any writ petition challenging status quo orders can be heard. This preserves the hierarchical integrity of civil litigation, prevents premature judicial interference, and ensures that interim relief is decided on merits by the court of first instance, not appellate writ jurisdiction.

Bombay High Court dismisses appeal for injunction in a specific performance suit, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the agreement terms-a prerequisite under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The judgment reinforces that mere payment of earnest money or partial compliance is insufficient to secure equitable relief in property disputes.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that long-standing or affectionate possession by a caretaker, without any legal title or lease, cannot justify an injunction against the true owner. Possession must be surrendered upon demand, reinforcing that mere physical control does not equate to lawful right under property law - a critical clarification for landlords, property managers, and tenants in urban disputes.

The Supreme Court has ruled that monetary compensation cannot be substituted for a mandatory injunction when the plaintiff has not prayed for it, reinforcing that judicial relief must strictly adhere to pleaded claims. This upholds the foundational principle of party autonomy in civil litigation and prevents courts from rewriting pleadings under the guise of equitable remedies.

The Bombay High Court nullified an injunction granted to a respondent based on an unregistered lease executed by a power of attorney holder with no authority to lease the entire property. This ruling reinforces that mere physical possession under an ultra vires lease cannot confer lawful possession without valid title or registered authority, impacting landlords, tenants, and property litigants relying on informal agreements.

The Bombay High Court restrained encashment of bank guarantees after finding that a mutually agreed, written, and implemented compensation adjustment for pandemic-related toll losses cannot be nullified by internal audit objections. This sets a critical precedent that contractual good faith and equitable adjustment take precedence over the absolute nature of bank guarantees in infrastructure contracts, protecting project operators from arbitrary financial clawbacks.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that civil courts lack jurisdiction to interfere with final orders passed by Revenue Courts under the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, even when possession is contested. This reaffirms the statutory exclusivity of revenue tribunals in land title matters, preventing forum shopping and ensuring consistency in land record adjudication across Uttar Pradesh.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the mere urgency of an injunction dispute cannot override the statutory right to appeal under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC. This reinforces that constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 227 is not a substitute for appellate remedies, ensuring procedural discipline in civil litigation and protecting the hierarchy of judicial review.