Interim Mandatory Injunctions Can Be Granted After Giving Opportunity of Hearing To Opposite Side: SC
Interim Mandatory Injunctions Can Be Granted After Giving Opportunity of Hearing to Opposite Side: Detailed Explanation with Case Law
1. Understanding Injunctions:
Injunctions are court orders directing a party to do or refrain from doing a specific act.
They can be:
Prohibitory injunctions — restrain a party from doing something.
Mandatory injunctions — require a party to perform a specific act.
Interim injunctions are temporary, granted during the pendency of a suit to preserve the status quo or prevent irreparable harm.
2. What is an Interim Mandatory Injunction?
It compels the defendant to take a positive action (e.g., restore possession, remove obstruction).
More drastic than prohibitory injunctions because it interferes actively with the defendant’s rights.
Courts are cautious in granting these due to their intrusive nature.
3. Legal Principle: Hearing Before Granting Interim Mandatory Injunction
The Supreme Court has held that an interim mandatory injunction cannot be granted ex parte (without hearing the opposite party).
This is because mandatory injunctions can cause irreparable harm to the defendant if wrongly granted.
Fair opportunity to be heard is a cornerstone of natural justice and is essential before such relief is given.
4. Key Supreme Court Case Law:
a) Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 170
The Court emphasized that mandatory injunctions affect substantive rights.
Such injunctions should be granted cautiously, preferably after hearing both sides.
b) N. Subramanian v. K. Gunasekaran, (2008) 7 SCC 125
The Supreme Court reiterated that interim mandatory injunctions are exceptional and cannot be passed without giving the opposite party a chance to explain.
Highlighted that courts must balance the rights of both parties.
c) State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592
Observed that the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) applies strictly in cases of mandatory injunctions.
The court held that ex parte mandatory injunctions are not generally permissible.
d) R.K. Aggarwal v. State of Haryana, (1991) 3 SCC 263
Reiterated that interim mandatory injunctions require strict scrutiny and should not be granted without a hearing.
5. Analytical Insight:
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature of Mandatory Injunction | Requires positive action, more intrusive than prohibitory injunctions. |
| Risk of Irreparable Harm | Higher risk to defendant if wrongly granted; hence cautious approach. |
| Natural Justice Requirement | Hearing the opposite party (audi alteram partem) is mandatory. |
| Court’s Discretion | Courts balance the equities before granting such injunctions. |
| Interim Nature | Temporary; final decision requires trial or further hearing. |
6. Summary:
Interim mandatory injunctions are extraordinary remedies.
The Supreme Court firmly requires opportunity of hearing to the opposite side before granting such injunctions.
This ensures fairness and prevents misuse of court’s power.
Parties must be prepared to present their case quickly to avoid delays.
7. Conclusion:
Granting interim mandatory injunctions without hearing the opposite party violates the principle of natural justice and can cause irreparable damage. The Supreme Court’s consistent jurisprudence ensures that courts act cautiously, balancing the interests of both parties and upholding fair hearing rights before passing such orders.
RELATED Blog
0 comments