In a significant ruling, the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has clarified that orders related to temporary injunctions are discretionary and do not amount to adjudication on the merits of the case. The Court also laid down the limits of appellate interference in such matters.
This decision came in response to conflicting interpretations by earlier Division Benches in cases including Colgate Palmolive Co. vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (2005), Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. vs. Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad (2012), and Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. vs. Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (2014). The conflict centered around whether such orders represent a prima facie adjudication or are simply discretionary in nature.
Read Also:-Religion Is A Factor, But Child's Welfare Paramount: Bombay High Court In Custody Dispute
The Division Bench decision of this Court in Colgate Palmolive Company (Supra) sets out the correct principle of law. An order of temporary injunction does not cease to be a discretionary order merely because the learned motion judge did not find any prima facie case, the Full Bench observed.
The case arose from a trademark dispute involving UTO Nederland B.V., a Dutch liquor producer, and Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., an Indian liquor manufacturer. The appellants had filed a suit for infringement and passing off, along with a plea for an interim injunction, which was denied by the trial court. The denial led to an appeal, prompting the larger bench's involvement.
The Full Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice M.S. Karnik, and Justice Shyam C. Chandak, emphasized the three-fold "trinity test" to be applied while considering temporary injunctions: the presence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the risk of irreparable injury.
A party is not entitled to an order of injunction as a matter of right. The grant of interlocutory injunction is a remedy which is discretionary in nature, the Court noted, underscoring the importance of judicial discretion.
Citing key precedents such as Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. and Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi, the Court stated that appellate courts must exercise caution and not interfere unless the discretion was shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.
The appellate court will not interfere with exercise of discretion of Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely,the Court held.
Further, the Full Bench concluded that the earlier views expressed in the Colgate case were in line with Supreme Court guidelines and should be followed. In contrast, it found that the reasoning in Parksons and Goldmines misapplied legal principles by treating temporary injunction orders as determinations on merits.
In resolving the legal question, the Court reasserted that the role of the appellate court is limited and that the original trial court’s decision should not be overturned merely due to a difference in opinion.
“In matters of temporary injunction, the Court does not adjudicate on the subject matter or any part of it on merits,” the Full Bench reiterated, bringing long-needed clarity to a frequently debated issue.
The matter will now proceed before the appropriate bench for final adjudication on the appeal.
