As per Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India), temporary injunctions can be granted to restrain any person from committing a breach of contract or other injury which would cause irreparable harm. The provision lays down the legal framework for seeking interim relief in civil matters, wherein parties may approach a competent court seeking an injunctive order against an act that is likely to cause loss or damage.
The grant of temporary injunctions is essential to protect the rights and interests of individuals who might otherwise suffer irreparable harm due to acts committed by other parties. This provision serves as a protective measure during ongoing legal proceedings and enables courts to issue orders that prevent further harm until the matter is resolved conclusively.
In several instances involving Non Resident Indians (NRI) such as contractual disputes over property ownership, maintenance issues regarding matrimonial relations, potential fraud cases with respect to investments made onshore or offshore etc., where NRIs find themselves embroiled in litigation proceedings in India, Section 9 has proved vital as it allows them quick access to justice and timely relief.
A few noteworthy case laws demonstrate how this provision has been interpreted by Indian courts:
• In K.K Modi v K.N Modi & Ors (1998), while dealing with interlocutory applications for temporary injunction, the Supreme Court held that “an injunction cannot be granted merely because action complained against causes some inconvenience”, adding that the nature of alleged injury must be grave enough warranting judicial intervention.
• In American Home Product Corporation v Mac Laboratories Pvt Ltd & Anr. (1986), it was observed that interim relief should not generally be granted if the balance of convenience lies heavily against granting it since if there were such heavy counter-balancing factors then inevitably damages would give sufficient remedy.”
• In Ramlubhaya Prasad Sinha V Gtaom Singh And Ors.(1972), Justice Krishna Iyer held “If the injury is not of such a nature that damages cannot afford adequate relief, compensation in money value will normally be considered to be sufficient.”
• In the case of Delhi Development Authority v Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.(1996), it was held that “granting interim injunction relief is discretionary and must be used judiciously and only for preventing any irreparable loss or damage.”
In conclusion, Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 plays an instrumental role in safeguarding the interests of Non Resident Indians who may find themselves embroiled in legal disputes while investing or conducting business transactions in India. It empowers courts to grant relief during ongoing proceedings, thereby ensuring justice is served promptly and efficiently. Legal practitioners should remain mindful of this provision when dealing with cases involving NRIs and pursue appropriate injunctive orders where necessary, keeping both their clients’ interests as well as Indian law at heart.