Published on: November 22, 2023 at 09:10 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. V. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1999)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Temporary Injunction is intended to preserve and maintain in status quo the rights of the parties and to protect the plaintiff, being the initiator, of the action against incursion of his rights and for which there is no appropriate compensation being quantified in terms of damages. The basic principle of the grant of an order of injunction is to assess the right and need of the plaintiff as against that of the defendant and it is a duty incumbent on to the law courts to determine as to where the balance lies. It is held that the object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial.
15. Lord Diplock in Cyanamid case [(1975) 1 All ER 504 : 1975 AC 396 (HL)] laid down the following guiding principles for the grant of interlocutory injunction:
(1) The plaintiff must first satisfy the court that there is a serious issue to decide and that if the defendants were not restrained and the plaintiff won the action, damages at common law would be inadequate compensation for the plaintiff’s loss.
(2) The court, once satisfied of these matters will then consider whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting injunction or not, that is, whether justice would be best served by an order of injunction.
(3) The court does not and cannot judge the merits of the parties’ respective cases and that any decision of justice will be taken in a state of uncertainty about the parties’ rights.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
