Ex Parte Injunctions in India
Ex Parte Injunctions in India
What is an Ex Parte Injunction?
An Ex Parte Injunction is a type of temporary injunction granted by the court without hearing the opposite party (defendant). It is an urgent and interim order issued in situations where delay may cause irreparable harm to the applicant if the injunction is not granted immediately.
Legal Provisions Governing Ex Parte Injunctions:
Order 39, Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the CPC
The court can grant a temporary injunction ex parte when the circumstances require immediate intervention.
Why Are Ex Parte Injunctions Granted?
When there is a real urgency and waiting to hear the defendant might lead to irreparable injury or damage.
To prevent the defendant from taking steps that could defeat the purpose of the suit.
To preserve the status quo until the defendant is given an opportunity to be heard.
Characteristics of Ex Parte Injunctions:
No Hearing of Opposite Party:
The defendant is not heard before the injunction is granted.
Temporary and Interim:
The injunction is granted for a short period, usually until the defendant is heard.
Requires Prompt Hearing After Grant:
The defendant must be given notice immediately after the injunction is granted and given an opportunity to challenge it.
Usually Conditional on Security:
The court may require the applicant to furnish security to compensate the defendant if the injunction is found wrongful.
Procedure for Granting Ex Parte Injunction:
The plaintiff files an application supported by an affidavit stating the facts and urgency.
The court may grant an injunction without notice to the defendant.
The court fixes a date for the defendant to appear and contest.
The ex parte injunction remains in force until it is modified, vacated, or continued after hearing the defendant.
Conditions/Tests for Granting Ex Parte Injunctions:
The conditions for temporary injunctions generally apply, but urgency is paramount here:
Urgency and Imminent Danger:
There must be urgency requiring immediate relief.
Prima Facie Case:
The plaintiff must show a strong prima facie case.
Irreparable Injury:
Plaintiff must demonstrate that harm caused by denial of the injunction would be irreparable.
Balance of Convenience:
The balance of convenience must favor the plaintiff.
Important Case Laws on Ex Parte Injunctions:
1. P.N. Das & Sons v. Kanoria Industries Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 1570
The Supreme Court held that an ex parte injunction should not be granted routinely.
The court emphasized that it is an extraordinary remedy and requires a strong prima facie case and urgency.
Once the defendant is heard, the injunction may be confirmed, modified, or vacated.
2. American Express Bank Ltd. v. Kalpana Sharma, AIR 2000 SC 1066
The Supreme Court reiterated that granting an ex parte injunction involves judicial discretion.
The court warned against granting ex parte injunctions casually or mechanically.
The party seeking an ex parte injunction must satisfy the court on the threefold test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
3. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853
The Supreme Court emphasized that ex parte injunctions should be temporary and not a substitute for a final decree.
The court insisted on immediate opportunity for the defendant to be heard.
When Should Ex Parte Injunction Not Be Granted?
When the plaintiff has an adequate alternative remedy.
Where there is no urgency.
If the plaintiff fails to show a prima facie case.
When the injunction would cause undue hardship to the defendant.
Practical Example:
Suppose a plaintiff files a suit against a company alleging breach of contract and fears that the company may transfer key assets immediately. The plaintiff applies for an ex parte temporary injunction to prevent transfer of those assets before the company can be heard.
If the court finds urgency and a prima facie case, it may grant such injunction to prevent damage, until the company is served notice and given a hearing.
Summary:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Definition | Temporary injunction granted without hearing the opposite party |
| Governing Provision | Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC |
| Purpose | To prevent irreparable injury due to urgency |
| Conditions | Urgency, prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience |
| Characteristics | Temporary, ex parte, subject to later hearing |
| Key Case Laws | P.N. Das & Sons v. Kanoria Industries Ltd., American Express Bank Ltd., S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath |
| When Not to Grant | No urgency, no prima facie case, alternative remedies available |
RELATED Blog
0 comments