Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Clearly, from the initial screenplay, which was to acknowledge both Ms. Laxmi Agarwal and the Plaintiff, the complete absence of any mention of the Plaintiff's name anywhere in the beginning or in the end credits would constitute reneging from the promise. A perusal of the credits shows that a large number of contributors have been expressly acknowledged.

29. The legal issue as to whether an ad interim mandatory injunction can be granted at the ex parte stage in this manner is no longer res integra. Mandatory injunctions and mandatory interim injunctions can clearly be granted even as per the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner. The judgment in Dorab Cawasji Warden v Coomi Sorab Warden and Others (supra) holds that such injunctions are granted to preserve the status quo or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status, generally. The observation of the Supreme Court is as under:

"16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are:
(1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.
(3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief."

30. The above observations of the Supreme Court also considered the celebrated passage from Halsbury's Laws of England on mandatory injunctions, which reads as under:

"On the test to be applied in granting mandatory injunctions on interlocutory applications in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edn., Vol. 24, para 948 it is stated:
A mandatory injunction can be granted on an interlocutory application as well as at the hearing, but, in the absence of special circumstances, it will not normally be granted. However, if the case is clear and one which the court thinks ought to be decided at once, or if the act done is a simple and summary one which can be easily remedied, or if the defendant attempts to steal a march on the plaintiff, such as where, on receipt of notice that an injunction is about to be applied for, the defendant hurries on the work in respect of which complaint is made so that when he receives notice of an interim injunction it is completed, a mandatory injunction will be granted on an interlocutory application."