Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Indiaideas.com Limited, filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against Supreme Chambers Condominium and Supreme Industries Limited, seeking to enforce an agreement to sell a condominium unit and to restrain the defendants from interfering with its possession. The plaintiff also filed an interim application (IA No. 4679 of 2025) seeking an ad-interim injunction to protect its possession pending disposal of the suit. The court noted that the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit premises pursuant to an agreement to sell and had paid substantial consideration. The defendants, particularly the condominium association, threatened to dispossess the plaintiff on alleged grounds of violation of bye-laws. The court considered the principles for grant of interim injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. It held that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case as the agreement to sell was valid and the plaintiff's possession was lawful. The balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff because if the injunction was not granted, the plaintiff would be dispossessed and the suit would become infructuous. Irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff as it would lose possession of the property and the benefit of the agreement. The court also noted that the defendants' allegations of bye-law violations were not substantiated at this stage. Accordingly, the court allowed the interim application and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit premises until the disposal of the suit. The court clarified that this order was interim and would not affect the final determination of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Balance of Convenience - Irreparable Loss - Plaintiff sought interim protection of possession pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell condominium unit - Court held that plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience was in its favour, and it would suffer irreparable loss if injunction was not granted - Held that interim injunction is necessary to preserve the subject matter of the suit (Paras 1-10). B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Permanent Injunction - Possessory Remedy - Plaintiff claimed possession under an agreement to sell and sought protection from threatened dispossession - Court found that plaintiff's possession was lawful and defendant's attempt to dispossess was without authority - Held that plaintiff is entitled to protection of possession pending final adjudication (Paras 5-8). C) Condominium Bye-Laws - Interpretation - Rights of Unit Owners - Dispute between condominium association and unit owner regarding use of common areas - Court did not finally adjudicate on bye-law interpretation but noted that plaintiff's possession was not shown to be in violation - Held that interim protection should not be denied based on unsubstantiated allegations of breach (Paras 6-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with its possession of the suit premises pending disposal of the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.
Final Decision
Interim Application No. 4679 of 2025 is allowed. Defendants, their servants, agents, and assigns are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit premises until the disposal of the suit. The order is interim and subject to final adjudication.
Law Points
- Prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- interim injunction
- specific performance
- possession
- condominium
- bye-laws
