Injunction

Injunction:
Injunction is a judicial process or an order restraining a person from continuation of any wrongful act. The rules that governs the grant of injunction are envisages in section-36 to 42 of the Indian Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Order-XXXIX (temporary injunctions and interlocutory order)-Rule 1 (cases in which temporary injunction can be granted) & Rule 2 (injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach), Section-151 (Inherent power of the Court) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section-38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 says when and against whom the perpetual injunction can be granted; Section-39 of the act talks about the Mandatory Injunction and it is provided by the Court to secure the interest of the one party where the interest is breached by the other party. In the continuing section-39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which provides that a plaintiff can claim damages before the Court by putting forth his/her claim in the plaint. This is filed in addition to a suit under section-38 and 39 or separately.
There are four types of injunction and those are Anton Piller Injunction, Mareva Injunction, Interlocutory Injunction and Perpetual (permanent) Injunction.
1. Anton Piller Injunction: This is an ex parte order to make an inspection of the defendant’s premises. The Court may grant such an order to the plaintiff wherein there is a possibility of the defendant destroying or disposing of the incriminating material. It is an order for inspection of the premises of the defendant.
An ex parte order means an order passed on the basis of the application of the plaintiff without giving the defendant a notice of the application, because such a notice would enable the defendant to tamper the evidence; hence ex parte order is passed. This concept was evolved in the case of Anton Pillar v. Manufacturing Process [(1976) RPC 719], where ex parte interlocutory order was granted. After hearing in camera, the Court authorizes plaintiff to inspect premises of defendant and take inventory of the offending material.
Example: In the case EMI v. Kishorilal [(1976) RPC 333], it was held that such an order may authorize samples to be taken or experiment to be made on or with any property which is the subject matter of the action.
There are three conditions requisite for the declaration of an Anton Piller Order-
a. There must be a strong prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff.
b. If Such an Order is not granted which will cause irreparable damage to the applicants for injunction.
c. There must be clear evidence that the defendant have incriminated documents or things in their possession & that there is a real possibility that they may destroy those material if any notice of application is served.

2. Mareva Injunction: This is such an Order of the Court that empowers the Court to ‘freeze’ defendant’s assets and other properties related to the suit; where there exists a probability of the asset and property being dissipated or cancelled so as to make a judgment against him worthless or unenforceable. The concept of this injunction evolved from the case named Mareva Compania Naviera SA v. International Bulkcarriers SA [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep 509. This is basically a common law remedy that the Court provides to the plaintiff by ‘freezing’ the defendant’s asset or other properties to prevent the possible harmony to the plaintiff.
3. Interlocutory Injunction: This is the most commonly sought and most often granted form of injunction. It serves to take action against the defendant on the basis of past wrongful act done. The interlocutory injunction is an order restraining the defendant from continuation of the acts which amount to a wrongful act in the eye of law. For example, an interlocutory injunction serves the purpose of preventing further infringement of a Trademark or Patent, during the pendency of the case before the Court.
In case of urgency the Court can grant an ex parte i.e. without serving a notice to the opposite party. However this ex parte injunction is granted for a limited period. Party seeking an ex parte interim injunction has to discharge the duty of making full disclosure to the Court regarding all material facts to get Court’s discretion whether or not to grant interlocutory injunction. The Court may also reject the application of an ex parte injunction on the ground that the disclosure is not full and true. Therefore it is a discretionary power of the Court; hence the applicant can not claim it as a matter of right to have an ex parte order granted in his favor.
Example: In Wander Ltd. and Anr. v.Antox India P. Ltd. (MANU/SC/0595/1990) the Supreme Court on interlocutory injunction held that “Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of a legal right asserted by the plaintiff & its alleged violation are both contested… The object is to protect the Plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favor at the trial”.
4. Perpetual (Permanent) Injunction: It is an order restraining the defendant totally from doing any act which infringes the rights of the proprietor of any property. It is generally granted when the suit is finally decided. It usually follows when the grant of interim injunction against the infringement was granted at the beginning of the suit. It can be granted also in cases where no interim injunction has been granted.
Example: In Montres Rolex S. A. v. Amit Gupta and Ors. (30.3.2006) case Plaintiff is a worldwide renowned manufacturer of watches which are marketed under the trademark of ROLEX. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been using this trademark since 1913, much prior to the user of the mark ROLEX by the defendants.
This was a suit for permanent injunction and damages under Sections 105 and 106 of the Trademark Act, 1999. When summons were issued in the suit initially, the defendants entered appearance. They did not, however, file any written statement but filed a reply, which was an application for interim injunction filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
Thereafter the defendants failed to appear and this Court by an order dated 25.07.2005 directed that the defendants be proceeded with ex parte.
The plaintiff thereafter led its ex parte evidence by way of affidavit of one Mr V. Seetharaman. The said Mr V. Seetharaman claimed to be the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court held that “ROLEX is well known worldwide, as established by
the evidence led by the plaintiff, who has gone un-rebutted. The plaintiff has been utilizing this mark for its products which are essentially quality watches which go under the name of chronometric instruments because of their precision in recording time. Therefore, it would not be wrong to assume that the plaintiff is keen to guard its reputation with regard to its mark ROLEX”. Hence, the Court allowed permanent injunction and ordered defendant to restrain from using the trade mark of plaintiffs’.