(b) to stay proceedings in a Court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is
sought;
(c) to restrain persons from applying to any legislative body‘
(d) to interfere with the public duties of any department of the Federal Government, or any
Provincial Government, or with the sovereign acts of a Foreign Government;
(e) to stay proceedings in any criminal matter;
(f) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically
enforced.
(g) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it
will be a nuisance;
(h) to prevent a continuing breach in which the applicant has acquiesced;
(i) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of
proceeding except in case of breach of trust;
(j) when the conduct of the applicant or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to
the assistance of the Court;
(k) where the applicant has no personal interest in the matter.
Illustrations
(a) A seeks an injunction to restrain his partner B, from receiving the partnership debts
and effect. It appears that A had improperly possessed himself of the books of the firm and
refused B access to them. The Court will refuse the injunction.
(b) A manufactures and sells crucibles, designating them as ‗patent plumbago crucibles,‘
though in fact they have never been patented. B pirates the designation. A cannot obtain
an injunction to restrain the piracy.
(c) A sells an article called ‗Mexican Balm, ‗ stating that it is compounded of diverse rare
essences, and has sovereign medicinal qualities. B commences to sell a similar article to
which he gives a name and description such as to lead people into the belief that they are
buying A‘s Mexican Balm. A sues B for an injunction to restrain the sale. B shows that A‘s
Mexican Balm consists of nothing but scented hog‘s lard. A‘s use of his description is not an
honest one and he cannot obtain an injunction,
Court Decisions
Bar for grant of permanent injunction:--Contract for sale of goods was not capable of being
specifically performed, therefore, permanent injunction in terms of S. 56, Specific Relief
Act, 1877 could not be issued. Where permanent injunction could not be issued, interim
injunction also would not be issued. In relation to contract of sale of goods, unless
otherwise shown and established, compensation in terms of money would be adequate
consideration. P.L.J.1998 Kar 245 = PLD 1998 Kar. 1.
Contract between parties was of category of contracts which could not be specifically
enforced and fell within the mischief of Cl. of S. 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and bar
of injunction as provided in S. 56 of the Act was attracted. Plaintiffs could not make out
prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction pending decision of suit, in so far as
third party interest had been created in property in question as per plaintiffs' own
admission and their failure to implead such persons as party in their suit. Balance of
convenience, thus,, would not be in favour, of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs having themselves
estimated damages/losses suffered by them on account of breach of agreement in the sum
of specified amount, no case for temporary injunction was made out. Where relief asked for
could be measured in terms of money and plaintiffs themselves having claimed specified
amount as damages in their suit, grant of temporary injunction respecting land in question
was not warranted, and, hence, refused. P.L.J.1998 Kar. 822 = 1998 CLC 441.
Where share of defendants was admittedly undivided, even if it was proved that they had
agreed to .sell property, such agreement would be deemed to be void. Plaintiffs having
failed to make out prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Plaintiffs, however,
being tenants they would not be dispossessed/ejected otherwise than in due course, of
law. Relief claimed could not be granted for no injunction could be granted to stay Judicial
proceedings in terms of S. 56, Specific Relief Act, 1877. P.L.J.1999 Kar. 213 = 1998 CLC
1515.
Only legal points and not factual aspect could be discussed in revision. Factual aspect of
case having already been decided by concurrent Judgments of Courts below could not be
agitated before Revisional Court. Grounds stressed before 'High Court were almost the
same which were argued before Appellate Court. No legal flaw in Judgment of Appellate
Court had been pointed out by petitioner. Petitioner's contention that Appellate Court did
not comply with provision of O.XLI, R. 31 C.P.C. was without force, therefore, the same
could not warrant interference of High Court. Appellate Court while upholding trial Court's findings
considered
evidence
issuewise.
Petitioner,
thus,
could
not point
out
any
Jurisdictional
defect
in
impugned
Judgment
nor-he
could
show
any
misreading
of
relevant
evidence
or
overlooking
of
any
important
evidence.
Ownership
of
disputed
property
being
involved
in
the
case,
evidence
had
been
evaluated
by both
Courts
below.
Dispute
relating
to
ownership
of
property
in
question,
was
question
of
fact
and
the
same
was determinable
on
thorough
analysis
of
evidence
led
by parties.
Evidence
on
record
having
been
evaluated
by
Appellate
Court,
Scope
of
revisional
Jurisdiction
was limited
and
no interference
was
Justified
unless
patent
illegality,
want
of
Jurisdiction,
mis-exercise
of
authority
or
material
irregularity
could
be
disclosed.
Concurrent
findings
of
fact
recorded
by
Courts
below
did
not
warrant
interference
in
circumstances.-P.L.J.2000
Qta.
18
= PLD
2000
Qta.
66
Principles of estoppel:-- Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, S. 13 and Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 S. 145. Plaintiff had undertaken before Magistrate in proceedings
under S. 145, Cr.P.C. that he would be bound by decision of Rent Controller. Rent
Controller had found plaintiff to be tenant. Prayer for injunction (in presence of such
statement) in terms of S, 56(J), Specific Relief Act, 1877 would be hit by principles of
estoppel. Trial Court had correctly dismissed plaintiffs suit. P.L.J.1997 Kar. 1035 = 1997
CLC 1109 = NLR 1997 Civil 647
S.56(i) of Specific Relief Act:-- Contract of supply of goods was revoked by the appellant -
To enforce the contract, the respondent filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction
-- Where the respondent was simply purchasing goods from the appellants on the payment
of the price and against the delivery of the goods, such dealing between the parties was
squarely covered by S.5 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - If the appellants, even for malafide
reasons, had refused to sell the goods to the respondent, at the best, the respondent could
sue the appellant for damages, but no specific enforcement of the agreement could be
obtained under the decree of the Court, as per the provisions of S.56(i) of Specific Relief
Act, 1877 read with explanation to S.12 of the Act. 2002 CLC 77
Embargo on junction against Government:-- Grant or refusal of temporary injunction in
accordance with law would be based on principles as to: whether plaintiff had prima facie
good case; whether balance of convenience was in favour of grant of injunction; and
whether plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss, if injunction was refused---Two Courts below
and the High Court had not comprehended such principles including the one whether
plaintiff had prima facie good case---Retirement of plaintiff having already become
effective before issuance of injunction by Trial Court, interim injunction should not have
been issued ---Even otherwise, no irreparable loss would have been caused to plaintiff for
non-issuance of same, for, in case of his success he would have been considered as still in
Government service entitling him to recover his emolument from Government---High Court
while deciding case in favour of plaintiff had agreed with two Courts below without having
recourse to S. 56(d), Specific Relief Act, 1877, which placed embargo on powers of Court in
granting temporary injunction against Government Departments without resort being had
to other weighty and relevant consideration in the grant or refusal of temporary
injunction---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and impugned orders
passed by Courts below including the High Court granting and upholding order of status
quo ante, were set aside. 1998 S C M R 376
57. Injunction to perform negative agreement
Notwithstanding section 56, clause (f), where a contract comprises an affirmative
agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not
to do a certain act, the circumstance that the Court is unable to compel specific
performance of the affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting an injunction
to perform the negative agreement: provided that the applicant has not failed to perform
the contract so far as it is binding on him.
Illustrations
(a) A, contracts to sell to B for Rs. 1,000 the goodwill of a certain business unconnected
with business premises, and further agrees not to carry on that business in Karachi, B,
pays A, the Rs. 1,00 but A, carries on the business in ‗[Karachi]. The Court cannot compel
A to send his customers to B, but B may obtain an injunction restraining A, from carrying
on the business in ‗[Karachi].
(b) A, contracts to sell to B the goodwill of a business. A then sets up a similar business
close by B‘s shop and, solicit his old customers to deal with him. This is contrary to his
implied contract, and B may obtain an injunction to restrain A, from soliciting the
customers, and from doing any act whereby their goodwill may be withdrawn from B.
(c) A, contracts with 5 to sing for twelve months at B‘s theatre and not to sing in public
elsewhere. B, cannot obtain specific performance of the contract to sing, but he is entitled
to an injunction restraining B, from singing at any other place of public entertainment.
(d) B contracts*with A that he will serve him faithfully for twelve months as a clerk. A is
not entitled to a decree for specific performance of this contract. But he is entitled to an
injunction restraining B from serving a rival house as clerk.
(e) A contracts with B that, in consideration of Rs. 1,000 to be paid to him by B on a day
fixed, he will not set up a certain business within a specified distance. B fails to pay the
money. A cannot be restrained from carrying on the business within the specified distance.
Enactments Repealed
Rep. By the Amending Act, 1891 (XII of 1891
sought;
(c) to restrain persons from applying to any legislative body‘
(d) to interfere with the public duties of any department of the Federal Government, or any
Provincial Government, or with the sovereign acts of a Foreign Government;
(e) to stay proceedings in any criminal matter;
(f) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically
enforced.
(g) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it
will be a nuisance;
(h) to prevent a continuing breach in which the applicant has acquiesced;
(i) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of
proceeding except in case of breach of trust;
(j) when the conduct of the applicant or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to
the assistance of the Court;
(k) where the applicant has no personal interest in the matter.
Illustrations
(a) A seeks an injunction to restrain his partner B, from receiving the partnership debts
and effect. It appears that A had improperly possessed himself of the books of the firm and
refused B access to them. The Court will refuse the injunction.
(b) A manufactures and sells crucibles, designating them as ‗patent plumbago crucibles,‘
though in fact they have never been patented. B pirates the designation. A cannot obtain
an injunction to restrain the piracy.
(c) A sells an article called ‗Mexican Balm, ‗ stating that it is compounded of diverse rare
essences, and has sovereign medicinal qualities. B commences to sell a similar article to
which he gives a name and description such as to lead people into the belief that they are
buying A‘s Mexican Balm. A sues B for an injunction to restrain the sale. B shows that A‘s
Mexican Balm consists of nothing but scented hog‘s lard. A‘s use of his description is not an
honest one and he cannot obtain an injunction,
Court Decisions
Bar for grant of permanent injunction:--Contract for sale of goods was not capable of being
specifically performed, therefore, permanent injunction in terms of S. 56, Specific Relief
Act, 1877 could not be issued. Where permanent injunction could not be issued, interim
injunction also would not be issued. In relation to contract of sale of goods, unless
otherwise shown and established, compensation in terms of money would be adequate
consideration. P.L.J.1998 Kar 245 = PLD 1998 Kar. 1.
Contract between parties was of category of contracts which could not be specifically
enforced and fell within the mischief of Cl. of S. 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and bar
of injunction as provided in S. 56 of the Act was attracted. Plaintiffs could not make out
prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction pending decision of suit, in so far as
third party interest had been created in property in question as per plaintiffs' own
admission and their failure to implead such persons as party in their suit. Balance of
convenience, thus,, would not be in favour, of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs having themselves
estimated damages/losses suffered by them on account of breach of agreement in the sum
of specified amount, no case for temporary injunction was made out. Where relief asked for
could be measured in terms of money and plaintiffs themselves having claimed specified
amount as damages in their suit, grant of temporary injunction respecting land in question
was not warranted, and, hence, refused. P.L.J.1998 Kar. 822 = 1998 CLC 441.
Where share of defendants was admittedly undivided, even if it was proved that they had
agreed to .sell property, such agreement would be deemed to be void. Plaintiffs having
failed to make out prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Plaintiffs, however,
being tenants they would not be dispossessed/ejected otherwise than in due course, of
law. Relief claimed could not be granted for no injunction could be granted to stay Judicial
proceedings in terms of S. 56, Specific Relief Act, 1877. P.L.J.1999 Kar. 213 = 1998 CLC
1515.
Only legal points and not factual aspect could be discussed in revision. Factual aspect of
case having already been decided by concurrent Judgments of Courts below could not be
agitated before Revisional Court. Grounds stressed before 'High Court were almost the
same which were argued before Appellate Court. No legal flaw in Judgment of Appellate
Court had been pointed out by petitioner. Petitioner's contention that Appellate Court did
not comply with provision of O.XLI, R. 31 C.P.C. was without force, therefore, the same
could not warrant interference of High Court. Appellate Court while upholding trial Court's findings
considered
evidence
issuewise.
Petitioner,
thus,
could
not point
out
any
Jurisdictional
defect
in
impugned
Judgment
nor-he
could
show
any
misreading
of
relevant
evidence
or
overlooking
of
any
important
evidence.
Ownership
of
disputed
property
being
involved
in
the
case,
evidence
had
been
evaluated
by both
Courts
below.
Dispute
relating
to
ownership
of
property
in
question,
was
question
of
fact
and
the
same
was determinable
on
thorough
analysis
of
evidence
led
by parties.
Evidence
on
record
having
been
evaluated
by
Appellate
Court,
Scope
of
revisional
Jurisdiction
was limited
and
no interference
was
Justified
unless
patent
illegality,
want
of
Jurisdiction,
mis-exercise
of
authority
or
material
irregularity
could
be
disclosed.
Concurrent
findings
of
fact
recorded
by
Courts
below
did
not
warrant
interference
in
circumstances.-P.L.J.2000
Qta.
18
= PLD
2000
Qta.
66
Principles of estoppel:-- Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, S. 13 and Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 S. 145. Plaintiff had undertaken before Magistrate in proceedings
under S. 145, Cr.P.C. that he would be bound by decision of Rent Controller. Rent
Controller had found plaintiff to be tenant. Prayer for injunction (in presence of such
statement) in terms of S, 56(J), Specific Relief Act, 1877 would be hit by principles of
estoppel. Trial Court had correctly dismissed plaintiffs suit. P.L.J.1997 Kar. 1035 = 1997
CLC 1109 = NLR 1997 Civil 647
S.56(i) of Specific Relief Act:-- Contract of supply of goods was revoked by the appellant -
To enforce the contract, the respondent filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction
-- Where the respondent was simply purchasing goods from the appellants on the payment
of the price and against the delivery of the goods, such dealing between the parties was
squarely covered by S.5 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - If the appellants, even for malafide
reasons, had refused to sell the goods to the respondent, at the best, the respondent could
sue the appellant for damages, but no specific enforcement of the agreement could be
obtained under the decree of the Court, as per the provisions of S.56(i) of Specific Relief
Act, 1877 read with explanation to S.12 of the Act. 2002 CLC 77
Embargo on junction against Government:-- Grant or refusal of temporary injunction in
accordance with law would be based on principles as to: whether plaintiff had prima facie
good case; whether balance of convenience was in favour of grant of injunction; and
whether plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss, if injunction was refused---Two Courts below
and the High Court had not comprehended such principles including the one whether
plaintiff had prima facie good case---Retirement of plaintiff having already become
effective before issuance of injunction by Trial Court, interim injunction should not have
been issued ---Even otherwise, no irreparable loss would have been caused to plaintiff for
non-issuance of same, for, in case of his success he would have been considered as still in
Government service entitling him to recover his emolument from Government---High Court
while deciding case in favour of plaintiff had agreed with two Courts below without having
recourse to S. 56(d), Specific Relief Act, 1877, which placed embargo on powers of Court in
granting temporary injunction against Government Departments without resort being had
to other weighty and relevant consideration in the grant or refusal of temporary
injunction---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and impugned orders
passed by Courts below including the High Court granting and upholding order of status
quo ante, were set aside. 1998 S C M R 376
57. Injunction to perform negative agreement
Notwithstanding section 56, clause (f), where a contract comprises an affirmative
agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not
to do a certain act, the circumstance that the Court is unable to compel specific
performance of the affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting an injunction
to perform the negative agreement: provided that the applicant has not failed to perform
the contract so far as it is binding on him.
Illustrations
(a) A, contracts to sell to B for Rs. 1,000 the goodwill of a certain business unconnected
with business premises, and further agrees not to carry on that business in Karachi, B,
pays A, the Rs. 1,00 but A, carries on the business in ‗[Karachi]. The Court cannot compel
A to send his customers to B, but B may obtain an injunction restraining A, from carrying
on the business in ‗[Karachi].
(b) A, contracts to sell to B the goodwill of a business. A then sets up a similar business
close by B‘s shop and, solicit his old customers to deal with him. This is contrary to his
implied contract, and B may obtain an injunction to restrain A, from soliciting the
customers, and from doing any act whereby their goodwill may be withdrawn from B.
(c) A, contracts with 5 to sing for twelve months at B‘s theatre and not to sing in public
elsewhere. B, cannot obtain specific performance of the contract to sing, but he is entitled
to an injunction restraining B, from singing at any other place of public entertainment.
(d) B contracts*with A that he will serve him faithfully for twelve months as a clerk. A is
not entitled to a decree for specific performance of this contract. But he is entitled to an
injunction restraining B from serving a rival house as clerk.
(e) A contracts with B that, in consideration of Rs. 1,000 to be paid to him by B on a day
fixed, he will not set up a certain business within a specified distance. B fails to pay the
money. A cannot be restrained from carrying on the business within the specified distance.
Enactments Repealed
Rep. By the Amending Act, 1891 (XII of 1891
No comments:
Post a Comment