Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Mr. Bachawat further submitted that Learned Trial Court refused to pass an interim order on the following grounds :-

(a) A negative declaration is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963;

(b) The Learned Trial Judge held that the Court has no jurisdiction in respect of matters where there is an arbitration clause and that the Division Bench judgment reported in 2009 (2) CHN 597 (G E Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Amritajit Mitra) was a matter to be proved in trial and could not be considered at the time of ex parte hearing of the injunction application;

(e) No prima facie case and no urgency to warrant an interim order of injunction.

According to him, the aforesaid grounds for refusal of an ex parte injunction are perverse and based on an incorrect view of the law and could not have been grounds for refusal without the defendant appearing and taking such grounds.

He further submitted that the findings of the Learned Judge that negative declaration is not maintainable is erroneous and misconceived on the ground that there was no bar/prohibition in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with regard to negative declaration. Reliance is placed on AIR 1951 Cal. 147 and AIR 1959 Pun. 581. He also contended that the plaintiff has sought various reliefs in the plaint including positive declarations and perpetual injunctions. The fact that negative declaration is prayed for in the plaint cannot affect the maintainability of the other prayers in the suit or the merits of the matter.