Case Note & Summary
The present interim application was filed by the original defendant No. 1, Babasaheb Neelkant Kalyani, in a suit for specific performance and injunction filed by the plaintiffs, Sugandha Hiremath and Jaidev Hiremath. The plaintiffs sought specific performance of an agreement for sale of shares and property, and also sought an injunction restraining the defendant from transferring the suit property. The defendant, in turn, filed this interim application seeking an injunction against the plaintiffs from transferring, alienating, or creating third-party rights over the suit property and shares. The court examined the documents and submissions. The court noted that the plaintiffs had filed the suit for specific performance and that the defendant had not made out a prima facie case for the interim relief sought. The court observed that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the defendant and that no irreparable loss would be caused to the defendant if the injunction was not granted. The court also considered that the plaintiffs had a strong case for specific performance. Accordingly, the court dismissed the interim application. The court held that the defendant failed to satisfy the requirements for grant of an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Prima Facie Case - The court examined whether the applicant/defendant had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case as the documents relied upon were disputed and the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction. (Paras 1-10) B) Specific Performance - Sale of Shares - Prima Facie Case - The court considered the claim for specific performance of an agreement for sale of shares and property. The court held that the applicant did not establish a clear right to the relief sought, as the agreement was not sufficiently proved at the interim stage. (Paras 5-8) C) Property Law - Injunction - Balance of Convenience - The court assessed the balance of convenience and irreparable loss. It concluded that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs, as the applicant had not shown any irreparable loss that could not be compensated by damages. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant/defendant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the plaintiffs from transferring, alienating, or creating third-party rights over the suit property and shares pending disposal of the suit.
Final Decision
The interim application is dismissed. The court held that the applicant/defendant failed to make out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was not in favour of granting the injunction.
Law Points
- Prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- interim injunction
- specific performance
- sale of shares
- property rights
- Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC
