#temporary injunction

The Calcutta High Court held that an oral agreement for land sale, evidenced by parties' conduct, establishes a prima facie case for specific performance warranting a temporary injunction. The court ruled the suit does not fall under the Commercial Courts Act, and a plea for alternative damages does not disentitle the plaintiff from injunctive relief.

A Division Bench may not set aside a trial judge’s grant of an interim injunction unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely. The Supreme Court said appellate courts can intervene only on a ground of abuse of discretion, leaving the interim relief intact.

The Karnataka High Court quashed an appellate injunction order after finding the plaintiff deliberately concealed a registered partition deed, reaffirming that appellate courts lack authority to substitute the trial court’s discretion unless its decision is perverse or arbitrary. This ruling strengthens procedural integrity in property disputes by penalizing suppression of material evidence and upholding the trial court’s first-hand assessment of prima facie claims.

Bombay High Court rules that promoters must secure explicit informed consent from existing apartment owners under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, before undertaking structural alterations. The Court overturned a blanket injunction, permitting construction subject to undertakings to preserve amenities, reinforcing promoter obligations and buyer rights in real estate disputes.

Bombay High Court rules that a suit for specific performance of an undivided share in immovable property must include a claim for partition under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court also held that contingent contracts become void upon withdrawal of the underlying litigation, and blanket injunctions require precise property description to be valid.

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.

Bombay High Court rules that a signed certified copy of an arbitral award meets the validity requirement under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act, eliminating the need for additional formalities. The court remanded a property dispute for fresh consideration of an injunction application, emphasizing the sufficiency of the certified award copy as prima facie evidence of validity.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has mandated that trial courts must dispose of urgent injunction applications under Order XXXIX CPC within 15 days, ruling that delays beyond this period defeat the purpose of interim relief. The court held that such adjournments warrant intervention under Article 227, reinforcing judicial accountability in property disputes.

Bombay High Court rules that directors lack inherent authority to bind a company in property transactions without a valid board resolution. Plaintiffs in specific performance suits must demonstrate both the director’s authority and their own readiness to perform to secure interim relief. The ruling reinforces corporate governance safeguards under the Companies Act, 2013, impacting shareholders, directors, and litigants in contract disputes.

Karnataka High Court under Article 227 modifies a temporary injunction in a partition suit, allowing construction on disputed property while restraining alienation, provided the suit is disposed of within six months. The ruling balances interim relief with expeditious adjudication, offering a pragmatic approach for property disputes under civil procedure.

Allahabad HC rules that in benami property disputes between spouses, the party in possession at the time of suit cannot be forcibly dispossessed without due process, even if the property is registered in the other spouse's name. The court emphasized the need to maintain status quo to prevent irreparable harm, reinforcing protections under civil law for contested assets.

Bombay High Court reinforces that developers must secure explicit consent from flat purchasers under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act 1963 before undertaking additional construction. The ruling protects housing societies from unilateral FSI exploitation and ensures statutory compliance in cooperative housing projects.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that a purchaser of a superstructure without land title cannot override a prior mortgage under the SARFAESI Act, even with municipal permission. The ruling reinforces the primacy of secured creditors' rights over subsequent bona fide purchasers in property disputes.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that in partition suits, interim injunctions cannot recognize or effectuate partial divisions of joint property. Only a complete preservation of the status quo is permissible until final adjudication, ensuring no party gains an unfair advantage through piecemeal possession. This clarifies the equitable limits of Order 39 CPC and binds all subordinate courts handling ancestral property disputes.

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.