The Calcutta High Court affirms settled precedents: Ad interim injunctions will not be granted unless the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, irrespective of alleged prior injunction violations. The judgment distinguishes binding authorities, upholding the primacy of core injunction tests in property matters, and clarifies the scope of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CO/1561/2023 of MANJUSHA NANDY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0237822023 |
| Date of Registration | 12-05-2023 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Calcutta High Court; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure, Property Law, Injunctions |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The grant of ad interim injunction is subject to satisfaction of three legal tests: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss or injury in favour of the plaintiff. Even if earlier orders of injunction were allegedly violated, if the plaintiff has transferred title and possession, and cannot prove continuing rights or possession, injunction cannot be granted. Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, while available to prevent abuse of process, do not override these core requirements nor permit reversal of title transfer absent sufficient proof or legal right. Authorities on violation of injunction orders are distinguished as inapplicable where facts show clear transfer of title. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Reiterated that the three legal tests must be fulfilled for grant of injunction; inherent powers under Section 151 CPC must not be used to circumvent these requirements. Prior authorities on violation of injunctions and inherent powers are well-settled but distinguishable based on transfer of title and possession by the petitioner. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners/plaintiffs, having initiated suits for declaration and injunction, had themselves transferred the disputed property by registered deeds of conveyance for valuable consideration to the corporation controlled by defendants. Petitioners alleged continued possession and violation of injunction orders, but evidence showed they lost all right, title, and possession. Lower courts refused ad interim injunction and subsequent appeals were dismissed. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals within West Bengal, especially in property and civil injunction matters |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court on the core question of ad interim injunction when title and possession have passed |
| Distinguishes |
|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that injunctions—ad interim or otherwise—require strict satisfaction of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm, regardless of allegations of wrongful transfer or violation of earlier injunction orders.
- Sale or transfer of property by the plaintiff himself, for consideration, negates his entitlement to injunction even if violations of earlier injunctions are alleged.
- Prior authorities holding sales violative of injunction orders to be void do not automatically apply where the plaintiff has voluntarily executed conveyances.
- Section 151 CPC (inherent powers) cannot be invoked to nullify clear title transfer in the absence of continuing right or possession.
- Distinguishes Supreme Court and High Court case law on nullity of sale deeds executed in violation of injunction, limiting their application to fact situations where plaintiff’s title and rights are intact.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court first summarizes the identical facts between the two connected revision petitions, focusing on the petitioner’s case where the title, possession, and registered transfer of property are not in dispute.
- Reviews orders of lower courts, noting the trial court’s refusal of ad interim injunction for lack of prima facie case, urgency, and possession proof; appellate court’s interim status quo order; and ultimate dismissal of appeals.
- Discusses the rationale for injunction: unless the legal tests—prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury—are satisfied, no injunction is warranted.
- Examines and distinguishes cited authorities (Century Flour Mills and Sujit Pal) regarding inherent powers and setting violations right, clarifying that such powers do not override the need for core injunction tests, nor apply when title has been admitted as transferred.
- Considers Supreme Court and High Court precedents on the nullity of sales made in violation of court orders (Jehal Tanti; Sonu Bhati) and finds these factually inapposite because the petitioners in the current case have voluntarily transferred title, and neither possession nor legal right remains with them.
- Holds that the lower courts committed no error in refusing injunction or dismissing appeals, as petitioners failed to maintain a prima facie case, or demonstrate any ongoing legal interest or injury.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (in person):
- Opposite parties violated status quo/injunction order by transferring the disputed property.
- Alleged forced transfer of property by executing registered deeds under pressure; several police complaints and FIRs lodged.
- Courts have the duty to rectify wrongs done in violation of court orders, relying on Century Flour Mills and Sujit Pal.
- Precedent establishes that sales violating injunction orders are void (relying on Jehal Tanti and Sonu Bhati).
Respondent (Opposite Parties):
- Petitioners themselves executed registered sale deeds, accepting valuable consideration, and thus have no current right, title, or interest in the property.
- Petitioners took back original sale deeds from court custody via Jimmanama.
- Since transfer of title and possession is admitted, the petitions for injunction are not maintainable and appeals were rightly dismissed.
Factual Background
The disputes arise from property suits filed by the petitioners, alleging illegal construction and encroachment by the opposite parties in relation to a project named “Eden Exotica.” Both petitioners had initiated suits for declaration, recovery, injunction, and removal of construction on the property, claiming ownership through a registered deed of conveyance. Complaints were also lodged with police over alleged illegal construction and encroachment. However, evidence showed that the petitioners themselves executed registered deeds of conveyance selling the property to a corporate entity controlled by the opposite parties, for valuable consideration, and handed over relevant documents. Lower courts refused ad interim injunction, and appellate remedies failed, leading to the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Statutory Analysis
- Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC: Court reiterates that grant of temporary/ad interim injunction requires fulfillment of three legal tests: (a) prima facie case, (b) balance of convenience, (c) irreparable injury—all must favor the plaintiff.
- Section 151 CPC: Inherent powers exist to prevent abuse of process, but cannot be exercised so as to nullify basic and settled requirements for injunction.
- Article 227 Constitution of India: Court’s supervisory jurisdiction invoked to challenge refusal of ad interim injunction, but court finds no infirmity in lower appellate court’s order.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions reported in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines reported in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✓ Precedent Followed – The court affirms existing law regarding the threefold test for grant of injunctions and the application of inherent powers, with factual distinctions made from cited authorities.
Citations
- Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah And Ors., AIR 1975 Mad 270
- Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun & Ors., AIR 1986 Cal 220
- Jehal Tanti & Ors. v. Nageshwar Singh (D) Thr. Lrs., (2013) 14 SCC 689 (distinguished)
- Sonu Bhati & Anr. v. Archana Jain & Ors., Delhi High Court, LPA 23 of 2025, CM No. 1630 of 2025 (distinguished)