Injunction As a Remedy for Breach of Contract
Injunction As a Remedy for Breach of Contract
INJUNCTION AS A REMEDY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
(a) Object and Scope
Injunction may be granted by the competent Court even before a breach of contract. It is available to restrain illegal actions of many kinds. In a contractual context, it is an order of the court which prohibits conduct whether amounting to infringement of legal or equitable right which is or would be a breach of contract. It is available where there is specific performance is not, as where there is a breach of a continuing or recurring obligation which would require supervision of the court. Injunction may be binding upon the servants or agents of the person enjoined. The Courts of Equity had historically exercised jurisdiction in suitable cases to grant injunction restraining breaches of contract and now by virtue of Judicature Act, all Divisions of the High Courts have been empowered to grant injunction in proper cases.1 By its nature an injunction is a preventive or prophylactic remedy for purposes of preserving the status quo.
Specific performance will not be granted of a contract of service, but an injunction may have the same effect but an injunction will not be granted if its effect is directly or indirectly to compel defendant to do acts which he could not been ordered to do by a decree of specific performance. Thus a servant cannot be restrained from committing a breach of his positive obligation to serve, for that would amount to specific enforcement of a contract of service.2
An injunction in nature is a judicial order by which a party is required to do a certain act or is prohibited and restrained from doing some other act. Its object is to maintain status quo. An injunction is an order of the Court which may be passed by consent of the parties and without a judicial determination of the circumstances justifying it but it must be passed by the Court as its own order. Equitable jurisdiction of injunction is exercised in personam and not in rem, and depends upon the control of the Court over the parties by reason of their presence and residence and not upon the place where the land lies in regard to which relief is sought.3 An injunction may be granted before a breach has occurred, where the plaintiff has been threatened with a breach or otherwise has come to expect one.4
Although the court cannot in the case of immovable property situate outside its jurisdiction, give relief in rem still it can entertain a suit in respect of which the relief can be sought obtained through the defendant's personal obedience. 5 Peshawar High Court held that if the defendants, although they reside outside the jurisdiction of the Court, had appeared in the suit and submitted personally to the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have jurisdiction to issue an injunction.6
An injunction is a remedy against an individual and should be issued only in respect of acts done by him against whom it is sought to be enforced. Ordinarily acts which are restrained by injunctions are those which appear to the Court issuing the injunctions to be prima facie illegal or with respect to the legality of which there is a reasonable doubt. An injunction cannot be granted to prevent acts which do not cause legal injury. An injunction may be issued to the parties to a contract to prevent its breach. But no injunction can be issued to a third party so as to make it abide by the contract to which it was not a party. Thus where there was a composite agreement containing two agreements, an agreement to lease property to the plaintiffs and also an agreement to sell it to the plaintiffs. The property subsequently passed to a third party. It was held that such third party could not be restrained by an injunction from selling the property to a person other than the plaintiffs. An injunction will not be issued in the case of contracts where their breach can be adequately compensated in damages. Where a contract lacks mutuality in the sense that though it can be enforced by injunction against one party, it cannot be enforced against the other, a Court will not grant an injunction to enforce it. An injunction should be in clear and specific terms. In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must value the relief he seeks, and amount at which he values it is entirely in his discretion. Even injunctions claimed in suit were undervalued and court fee was paid less, plaint could not be rejected on that point but plaintiff could be directed to value reliefs of injunctions according to the requirements of Court-Fees Act and amended plaint with due valuation and additional court-fee could be submitted.
The object of the process of injunction is both preventive and protective. It seeks to prevent a meditated wrong and not to redress an injury, which can usually be done only at law, and then to protect the party against any unlawful invasion of his rights. Supreme Court of Pakistan enunciated that injunction cannot be granted to person, foundation of whose claim rests upon illegality; where the parties are in pari delicto, it is the defendant who can take advantage and not the plaintiff. The purpose of an injunction is mainly to maintain the status quo in order to avoid embarrassment or complication by the introduction of a third party. But when the real purpose of the prayer for injunction is to change the status quo and not to maintain it, no order of injunction will issue or be granted to disturb the status quo, although the Court has power to make an order in terms wider than those asked for in order to prevent an irreparable injury when a prima facie case is made out. The injunction should be issued to the party and not to the Court. A Court has no jurisdiction to issue an injunction upon a person who is not party before it. A court ought not to prevent a man from doing what by contract, it is lawful for him to do. An injunction does not run with the property but only binds the owner. An injunction can be issued to a named person. The principle governing grant of injunction is not merely an infringement of plaintiff's legal right but also a proper and appropriate remedy for such infringement. Sale does not carry the injunction with the property. 7
It is to be determined, on the facts of each case, whether the covenants are for the benefit of all the purchasers and if found to be such, a breach thereof can be restrained by an injunction, even though the plaintiff was not one of the original contracting parties. Actual damage is not a condition precedent to the issue of an injunction in such cases.8 Injunction cannot be issued where its effect will be to virtually decide the case. The inability of the plaintiff to prove that he will suffer damage if the stipulation is broken is not a bar to the grant of an injunction.9
An interim relief granted during the pendency of a suit should not be of greater scope than what could be granted in the suit itself, after the party has established his right in the suit to that relief. This consideration would be a very relevant factor to be taken into account in deciding whether a court should or even could grant such an interim relief, especially so when the person against whom the interim injunction is sought is not a party to the suit, and against whom no relief could be granted in the suit itself. Language used in Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of the CPC positively directs that the Court, in all cases, shall issue notice to the opposite party before issuing an injunction against it. The exception to the rule is available only in such cases where the Court considers that by issuing notice to the opposite party, the delay involved in between the period would defeat the very object of the injunction. Thus, in order to justify an order of issuing injunction without notice, it has to be supported by reasons listed in the order of interim injunction itself. In absence of special reasons or circumstances, it shall be deemed that there was no urgency to issue the interim injunction without notice to the opposite party. Court has power under O. XXXIX, R, 4 of the Code to amend or to discharge vary or set aside order of injunction issued by it. Once a Court has decided a matter after giving each side an opportunity of being heard its order is final and binding on itself as well as on the parties and cannot be re-opened except on the presentation of some new material not available when the original order was passed. A party can legally ask for discharge, variation or setting aside an injunction order when owing to fresh circumstances it becomes duly harsh, unnecessary or unworkable. Specification of a sum of money to be paid in case of a breach of contract is no bar to grant of the injunction.10
(b) Discretionary Relief
In English law injunction is construed as a discretionary process of preventive and remedial justice, whereby a person is required to refrain from doing a specified meditated wrong.11 Dacca High Court held that granting of an injunction is purely within the discretion of the Court. This discretion however should be exercised in accordance with reason and on sound judicial principles, and is capable of correction by a Court of Law. Injunction is a discretionary relief and may be refused in the interest of public health. The party seeks the aid of a Court of equity, because he fears (quia timet) some future probable injury to his rights or interests, and not because any injury has already occurred which requires any compensation or other relief. 12
The exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief by issue of an injunction is not a matter ex debtio justitiae but one which is purely within the discretion of the court. Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. Court has to consider not merely whether the plaintiff's legal right has been infringed but also whether he ought to be granted an injunction as the proper and appropriate remedy for such infringement. The Court must be satisfied that damages are not or will not be a sufficient remedy and it is equitable to grant the relief sought.13
Where the effect of non-issuance of the injunction would be to deprive the plaintiff for ever of the right claimed in the suit, it should be granted. Injunction will not be granted if its effect will be to compel the defendant to fulfil a contract for personal service or to abstain from business whatsoever, for this would be to compel him to choose between specific performance and starvation. Thus an employee contracted to serve his employer for ten years and during that period not to engage in any other business. The employee left his employment in breach of the positive term and obtained other employment in breach of the negative term. Held. An injunction would not be granted to restrain the breach of the negative term because, in the circumstances of the case, it would inflict undue hardship on the defendant compelling him to choose between starvation or returning to his former employer.14 Since an injunction is a discretionary remedy, the Court may limit it considers reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Thus where a negative term forbade the defendant to engage in any trade, business or calling, either relating to goods of any description sold or manufactured by the plaintiff or in any other business whatsoever, the Court severed the negative term. As the negative stipulation was too widely expressed, so it was severed. Severance is not here governed by the rules relating to severance of illegal contracts. The question is not whether severance alters the nature of the contract, but simply whether an injunction to enforce such part of the negative stipulation as the pleader specifies amounts to indirect specific performance. So Court after severance of the negative term, granted injunction not to restrain the defendant from engaging in any other business whatsoever but framed so as to give the plaintiff a reasonable protection and no more. So Court kept in view the equitable nature of the remedy of the injunction and exercised its discretion in a balanced way which on the one hand protected the interest of the plaintiff and on the other hand was not harsh towards the defendant.15
If the employment is of a special kind, an injunction may be granted to restrain the defendant from doing similar work of that kind. Thus defendant, a prominent film actress, entered into a contract with the plaintiffs by which she undertook not to render any services for or in any other photographic or stage or motion picture production or business of any other person or engage in any other occupation during the term of employment without the written consent of the plaintiff. The defendant, in breach of this agreement, made arrangement to work for another film company. The plaintiffs brought this action for an injunction. Court held that, although it was impossible to grant an injunction to prevent her from engaging in any other occupation as this would amount to specific performance, an injunction should be granted to restrain her from working as an actress for any other person. There were other spheres of activity, which, if not so remunerative, would still be open to her, so that she would not be driven, although she might be encouraged, to perform the contract. 16
The conclusion to be drawn from the authorities, is that, where a contract of personal service contains negative covenants the enforcement of which will not amount either to a decree of the specific performance the positive covenants of the contract or to the giving of a decree under which the defendant must either remain idle or perform those positive covenants, the Court will enforce those negative covenants. The Troggs a pop group, contracted to appoint the plaintiff their sole agent and manager for five years, and agreed not to appoint any other person for that time. They fell out with the manager and wanted to replace him. The plaintiff sought an injunction. it was held that an injunction must be refused. Other reason for refusal to grant an injunction was the effect of compelling the defendant representing The Troggs pop group, to engage the plaintiff as their agents/managers or to wind up the group.17
Court my in its discretion enforce an injunction though in general terms, as it could be construed in a sense that was not unreasonably wide, and the Court should construe it in that sense to render it valid and enforceable. Thus Court granted the injunction to restrain the defendant working in the rival mail order firm of the plaintiff as the clause was intended to protect confidential information and trade secrets and it would be limited as such.18 Wherein the plaintiff had undertaken not to work for his employer's competitors during the duration of his employment. In breach of contract, he gave his employer two months notice of termination, instead of the required twelve months. Court in its discretion granted an injunction to prevent him from working for a rival newspaper for ten months on the plaintiff's paying him his wages for the remaining ten months.19 Court in its discretion can impose conditions in granting so that that interest of other party may also be safeguarded.
(c) Injunction & Specific performance
Courts invariably refuse the issue of an injunction if it will inevitably result in the enforcement in specie of a contract not otherwise specifically enforceable.20 In some respects, analogous to the equitable remedy of specific performance is the equally characteristic remedy of injunctions. A decree of Specific performance, as its name implies, enforces the performance of some specific act. An injunction is the converse of this; it judicially forbids the performance of some specific act or series of acts. A seller of timber can be restrained from breaking his promise to allow the buyer to enter on the land to cut down the timber and take it away. The contract may not be specifically enforceable but the injunction is not specific performance in the sense of compelling the vendor to do anything. It merely prevents him from breaking his contract.21
The jurisdiction of the Court for issuing injunction is often ancillary to that for specific performance for the purpose of preventing the defendant from making a use of some legal interest or right vested in him in a way inconsistent with the equity claimed by the plaintiff, or embarrassing the plaintiff by dealing with the property during the pendency of the action or obstructing the performance of some act incidental to the execution of the contract. Remedy of Specific Performance only applies to cases arising out of contract, since it rarely happens apart from contract that one person has a right to the performance of a particular act on the part of another. On the contrary, the cases for which injunction is proper remedy have usually no connection with contract.22
Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where a suit for injunction amounts to a suit for Specific performance, the Court may order the plaintiff to pay the Court-fee for the latter suit and grant him the relief by way of Specific Performance. Though reliefs by Specific performance and by injunction belong to the same branch of law, yet there is a distinction between the two remedies, in that Specific performance is directed to compel the performance of an active duty while an injunction is generally directed to prevent the violation of a negative duty. Often, the decree granting an injunction is equivalent to decreeing specific performance of the whole contract, e.g., where one of the contracting parties contracted to engage in a specific trade. Hence the principles that govern the grant or refusal of specific performance will be equally applicable in cases of injunction though the question, whether or not an injunction ought to be granted, is generally a far less complex question than whether or not specific performance ought to be decreed. 23
Injunction cannot be granted where specific performance cannot be directed. If in a contract damages is inadequate relief or it depends upon personal qualification or volition of the parties, specific performance cannot be ordered. Injunction is available where specific performance is not, so where the breach of a continuing or recurring obligation is of such a nature that requires the constant supervision, injunction can be granted in the place of specific performance. 24
A service may stipulate negative promises which can be enforced by injunction without indirectly compelling the servant to serve. Covenants in restraint of trade contained in service contracts are commonly enforced by injunction. But the servant is not compelled to serve as such covenants only begin to operate after the period of service is over. Some negative stipulations are intended to operate during the period of service which can be enforced by injunction if the injunction merely acts as an inducement to perform the positive obligation to serve, but not if it in effect compels the servant to serve. Thus the defendant undertook to sing at the plaintiff's theater for three months, and not to sing at any other theater without the plaintiff's written consent. She eventually abandoned the contract and took engagements to sing elsewhere. It was held that the plaintiff could have an injunction restraining the defendant from singing anywhere else. The negative nature of the injunction was prominent in the case, sine the Court could not compel the defendant to work solely for the plaintiff, though it could prevent her from working for anyone else. In this case the jurisdiction to grant an injunction to restrain a breach of contract is based on the rationale that when the court's jurisdiction to enforce specific performance functions, it binds man's conscience so there can be a true and literal performance of their agreement. So in this way courts will not leave them in a situation in which they are free to leave their agreements at their pleasure and resultantly leaving the other party to be content to the mere chance of any damages which the jury may give. Exercise of this jurisdiction by the courts flourishes a beneficial tendency towards the development and maintenance of good faith. Court can not compel her to sing; but she should have no objection if the court forces her to abstain from the commission of an act which she has bound herself not to do. Court in this way makes her to perform her part of the contract. 25
So it is well settled that the courts have the jurisdiction to forbid the infringement of a negative stipulation, even though it is accessory to a positive covenant for the performance of personal service. The injunction may put so much economic pressure on the servant that he will in fact be forced to perform the positive part of the contract. This danger could be avoided by insisting that the injunction should not leave the servant without some other reasonable means of earning a living. The present rule seems to be that an injunction may be granted so long as the servant can get some other work. It is irrelevant whether it is reasonable to expect him to do the work that he is still free to do. 26 A further danger is that the injunction may help to stifle competition. A negative Covenant operating after the end of the period of service must be reasonable and not contrary to the public interest, within the rules regulating contracts in restraint of trade. Sometimes, the effect of issuing injunction will be to enforce performance of the contract, even though the contract is one which the Court might not normally specifically enforce. Thus an express promise by the defendant to take the whole of his electricity from the Company was held to import a negative promise that he would take none from elsewhere, and an injunction was accordingly granted.27
There must have been inserted in the contract itself an express negative stipulation, and the defendant must have acted in breach of that stipulation. Thus a boxer agreed with the plaintiff that he should have the sole and exclusive arrangements of matching him in relation to all of his boxing contests and engagements during the period of next seven months. Subsequently boxer refused to be managed by the plaintiff. In terms, the contract contained no negative covenant, and so the court held that an injunction could not be granted.28 Courts have refused to hold that because a person has agreed to do a particular thing, he is therefore to be restrained from doing everything else which is inconsistent with it. 29 An injunction not to break the contract could not be distinguished from a decree of specific performance. But a promise to deal exclusively with one person can be enforced by an injunction against dealing with someone else. 30
A sole distributorship agreement may also be enforced by injunction. Thus a manufacturer was restrained from breaching a sole distributorship agreement in that he was prevented from disposing of the goods in any other way However, the Court would not order him to keep up the positive part of the covenant to keep up the distributor's supplies.31When the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance has no right to immediate possession and his title would accrue only after the contract has been specifically enforced or performed, the Court will not grant an order of injunction. In accordance with Section 56 (f) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, no injunction can be issued to prevent the breach of a contract which cannot be ordered to be specifically enforced. A contract between the Railway Administration and a contractor giving licence to the latter to supply refreshments in refreshment rooms and run buffet cars but terminable at 6 months notice, is a contract which cannot be enforced specifically; money compensation can be an adequate relief in such cases. The circumstances that the Court is unable to directly compel specific performance of an affirmative agreement by defendant that he shall serve the plaintiff as a cutter for ten years does not preclude it from indirectly compelling specific performance of the agreement by granting an injunction to perform the implied negative agreement that he will not during that period serve anybody else as cutter. In a building contract if a contractor is lawfully dismissed he has the remedy of getting compensation by way of damages and in such cases specific performance will not be granted by Courts. No injunction can, therefore, issue against a building owner at the instance of a building contract.
(d) Temporary injunction
(i) General rule
Interlocutory injunction is designed to regulate the position of the parties pending a hearing.32 A temporary injunction, called interlocutory, in English law, is merely provisional, in its nature, and does not conclude a right; its effect and object being merely to preserve the property in dispute or status quo, until the hearing or further order.33 Temporary injunctions have different time periods during which they remain in force. Effectiveness of temporary injunctions may be limited to until a specified time, or until the further order of the Court. Temporary injunction may be issued at any stage of the suit. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is applicable to the grant of them as they are regulated by the said code.34
The object of the temporary injunction is to prevent mischievous waste, unlawful alienation, fraudulent removal or disposal, of wrongful seizure in execution, of the property in dispute pending the trial of the suit. It is merely provisional in nature and does not conclude a right. It is granted in aid of the legal right sought to be established. Primary object of interlocutory injunction is to preserve the subject, in its then condition, and prevention any act whereby the right in controversy may be materially inured. Only such restraint will therefore be imposed as may suffice to stop the mischief complained of and to maintain the status-quo. Temporary injunction may be issued in suits, based on a breach of contract. An order for a temporary injunction can be sought only in aid of the prospective order for a perpetual injunction. If therefore, in the event of the plaintiffs success, he cannot obtain a decree for perpetual injunction, it is not competent to him to ask for a temporary injunction. A Court has no jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a person who is not party before it, unless he claims by or under a title acquired subsequent to the suit or unless he represents a party. Either party to the suit, whether plaintiff or defendant may be entitled to apply for a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, provided there is a proper case. An applicant for injunction should have some personal interest in the matter. A judge while issuing an interim injunction has to indicate whether the plaintiff has any interest in the matter and if so whether such interest would suffer in the event of not issuing an ad interim injunction immediately. The civil Court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction unless it is specifically barred from doing so
. The consideration upon which Court may grant or refuse to grant an interim injunction, pending the disposal of the suit, may be and often must be entirely different from the considerations upon which a court may grant or refuse to grant a perpetual injunction at the end of the suit. Rule 1 Order 39, CPC lays down a definite procedure for the issue of a temporary injunction and the Court cannot invent procedure independently of that provision of law. Temporary injunction ceases to subsist after the suit for perpetual injunction has been decreed. Where parties have agreed that a suit relating to a certain matter must be brought in the Court at a particular place, an injunction can be issued restraining a party from bringing a suit at some other place in breach of such agreement. In a suit for the specific of an agreement to grant a lease, the Court should grant a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from granting a lease to any other person, till the disposal of the suit. Where the temporary injunction was granted, in the presence of the counsels of the parties, the same takes effect from the date of the order and it is no defence to say that the order was not served upon the defendant. Temporary injunction can be distinguished from the perpetual injunction on the ground that the temporary injunction does not impose a permanent restraint, like the perpetual injunction nor does it conclude a right, like it.
Temporary injunction may be granted, at any stage of the litigation; while, the perpetual injunction forms part of the decree in the suit, made after a trial upon merits. If an application for temporary injunction is refused and another application is presented on the same grounds, the Courts will not hesitate to dismiss the subsequent application, but in a case where the fresh application is made on the facts and circumstances which are different from those which existed earlier and were relied upon, the subsequent application may be considered by the Court in the light of the changed circumstances. Suits barred by res judicata, an interlocutory injunction should not be granted to maintain the status quo in such a suit unless there is a decisive balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and the point of res judicata is doubtful. An injunction only acts on the parties to the suit.
An order of injunction is effective the moment it is communicated to the respondent, and not when it is actually made. If new circumstances arise, a fresh application can be made even after the dismissal of the earlier one. Even ex parte interim orders are appealable. As an order granting or refusing an injunction is passed in the exercise of discretionary powers, the appellant has to show that the Court acted wrongly or arbitrarily exercised its discretion. Except in compelling circumstances, the Supreme court ordinarily does not interfere in the interlocutory matters. The High Court will not interfere in the exercise of discretionary powers of injunctions unless the order is fanciful or arbitrary. When the Court has jurisdiction to grant the main relief, then as a necessary incident and corollary thereof, the power to grant relevant ad interim relief till the decision of the main case also vests in the Court.
Interlocutory injunctions could possibly be used to prevent a breach of contract by the defendant before it actually occurs. Plaintiff must show there is a serious issue to be tried at trial, and that the balance of convenience is in his favour in granting the injunction.35 Where the subject matter of a contract is in danger of being moved out of the jurisdiction in a case where a claim for damages or for an agreed sum is being heard and the sale of that subject matter is likely to be used to pay the damages, then it would appear that the plaintiff can apply for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from removing the subject matter from the jurisdiction. Such injunctions are known as Mareva injunctions.36
Injunction with respect to movables are generally, granted where the article may be possessed of peculiar value incapable of being measured by a money-compensation as, where it is an heirloom and generally in any suit under Section 11 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, an injunction, pendente lite might be a very necessary and proper precaution. A prima facie case may be shown by affidavit or otherwise. The Court is not called upon to decide which of the parties is right in their statement of facts and the Court should, as far as possible, abstain from prejudging the question in the cause. A temporary injunction can only be granted in a pending case. A Court cannot grant an injunction after the suit has been disposed of 1169 or dismissed in default. The Court has the power to impose conditions when issuing injunctions. A properly constituted suit is essential is essential before application for temporary injunction can be granted. If the Court finds that there is a substantial question to be investigated and that matters should be preserved in status quo till final disposal of that question, is sufficient question for granting injunction. The office of the court to interfere being founded on the existence of the legal right, a man who seeks the aid of the Court must be able to show a fair prima facie case in support of the right he asserts. He is not required to make out a clear legal title, but he must satisfy the Court that he has a fair question to raise as to the existence of the legal right which he sets up and there are substantial grounds for doubting the existence of the alleged legal right, the exercise of which he seeks to prevent. The real point is not how the question ought to be decided at the hearing of the case but whether the nature and difficulty of the questions are such that it is proper that the injunction should be granted until the time for deciding it should arrive.
In the matter of temporary injunction one of the guiding principles as laid down in Section 56 (K) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, is that the applicant should have some personal interest in the matter. A judge while issuing ad interim injunction has to indicate whether the plaintiff has a personal interest in the matter and if so whether such interest would suffer in the event of not issuing an ad interim injunction immediately. The existence of a right and its infringement are the first conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction. Plaintiff must have an arguable case for the grant of temporary injunction. The Court is required to balance the inconvenience and see whether the applicant will suffer more inconvenience by the withholding of the injunction than that which the respondent would by the granting of it. Court will only grant an injunction only if the balance of inconvenience is in favour of the petitioner. The applicant should show that irreparable injury will accrue to him if the injunction is not granted and that there is no other remedy open to him by which he can protect himself from the consequences of the apprehended injury. Irreparable injury means only that the injury must be one be one that the injury must be one that cannot be adequately compensated in damages.
An injunction can be granted restraining the breach of contract, provided it is a completed contract. Person in possession under an agreement for sale. Application for temporary injunction should be granted. That the suit would become infructuous if it did not issue is by itself no ground in law, if there was no prima facie case made in support of it. If the relief which the plaintiff seeks cannot be granted no temporary injunction can be issued by the Court. The lawful exercise of a right vested in a person cannot be legally restrained by the court through grant of injunction. Where in a suit by a Muhammadan husband for recovery of the person of his wedded wife, she pleads that she had exercised her right to annul marriage and the plaintiff prays for a temporary injunction restraining her from contracting a second marriage, there can be no doubt that the balance of convenience is in favour of the issue of the temporary injunction; for if she ultimately fails in her contention of a valid divorce, the refusal of a temporary injunction at this stage may well have paved the way by them of for a bigamous marriage and an illegitimate child or children. A temporary injunction should not as a rule be issued without a notice to the other party. Rule 1, Order 39, CPC lays down a definite procedure for the issue of a temporary injunction and the Court cannot invent procedure independently of that provision of law. Where the plaintiffs are a foreign firm, it is reasonable that they should be put on terms before an injunction is granted in their favour. Applicant's conduct must be such as not to disentitle him to assistance but it should be fair and honest and in particular there must be no acquiescence or delay. Temporary injunction may be granted if equally efficacious relief is not obtainable by any other usual mode or proceedings.
The leading principle which ought generally guide the Court and to limit its discretion in granting injunction is mischief complained of and to keep things in status quo during the pendency of the litigation. Injunction is an equitable relief and based upon well-known principles of equity (a) he who seeks equity must do equity and (b) he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. The Court shall not ordinarily grant injunction without notice to the opposite party unless it is found that delay involved in service of notice would defeat the very purpose of injunction. It is only in the sale of goods for default in payment at the stipulated time of the debt in respect of which the goods are pledged with the Bank that the Court cannot dispense with the notice even though it is felt that the delay would defeat the purpose of the injunction. Order of ad interim injunction passed by the lower Court before directing service of notice on opposite party was held to have been without jurisdiction and bad in law. The subsequent order making such order absolute, it was held could not cure the defect of jurisdiction.
(iii) Damages in lieu of or in addition to damages
Damages were originally only available at common law. The chancery Amendment Act 1858 gave the court of chancery the opportunity to grant damages in lieu injunction. It is possible for the court to grant damages in addition to these orders, provided the plaintiff can show that he has suffered some special loss or damage. Damages that arise here are discretionary and discretion is to be only exercised in the eventuality of non availability of injunction as the type of contract is of such a nature that injunction cannot be granted. Court may exercise its discretion in awarding damages despite the fact that the contract is of such a nature that injunction cannot be awarded because of some discretionary reason, for example, the lack of mutuality. It is pre-requisite for the exercise of discretion by the court that the plaintiff must have applied for either an injunction or an order for specific performance. 37
Where the Court of Appeal or High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for an injunction, it may award damages in addition to, or in substitution for, an injunction.38 In contractual cases, other than those concerning land, there is little point invoking s. 50 SCA 1981 where there is a valid contract and a breach of this is proved. However, the plaintiff may invoke the Act on two occasions: (1) Damages may be awarded under the Act even though there is no completed cause of action.39 In such cases, it would not be possible to get damages at common law. So damages are not possible to be recovered in lieu of a quia timet injunction and damages for breach of a restrictive covenant to which the defendant was not a party. (2) Damages awarded to the plaintiff may be greater under the Act than at Common law. Damages under the Supreme Court Act 1981 are assessed in the same manner as at common law. But, where damages are awarded at common law, the principle is that such damages are normally assessed as at the date of breach, a principle which is recognised and embodied in s. 51 Sale of Goods Act 1979. This is not an absolute rule and can be adapted where its application will result in injustice. If injustice will result from its application, then the court has power to deal with such situation and so it can fix such other date as may be appropriate in the circumstances.40
Generally an injunction should not be granted where pecuniary compensation is an adequate relief. In a suit for injunction, the Court can grant relief in the alternative as and by way of damages in the event of the Court holding, that though there was infringement of his rights yet the plaintiff was not entitled to equitable relief of injunction but could be adequately compensated by payment of damages. Plaintiff need not allege loss or damages. Damages may be awarded in substitution for injunction in cases where there are found in combination the following requirements, where injury to the plaintiff's right is (1) small, (2) capable of being estimated in money payment, and (4) where the case is one in which it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction. Where waiver by the plaintiff, of his right to ask for injunction in substitution of a claim for damages might be inferred from the plaintiff's conduct, the Court may refuse to grant him an injunction.
(iv) Delay & Laches
Laches in legal significance is not mere delay, but delay that works a disadvantage to another. So long as the parties are in the same condition, it matters little whether little whether one presses promptly or slowly, within limits allowed by law, but when knowing his rights, he takes no step to enforce them until the condition of the other party has, in good faith, become so changed that he cannot be restored to his former state. If the right be then enforced delay becomes inequitable and operates as estoppel against the assertion of the right. The disadvantage may come from loss of evidence, change of title, intervention of the equities, and other causes.
Mere delay in taking proceedings is not so material where an injunction is sought in aid of legal right, and that accordingly mere lapse of time will not be a bar to the legal right. Mere acquiescence, if by acquiescence is meant only the abstaining from legal proceedings is unimportant. Where one party invades the right of seeking redress merely because he remains passive unless indeed he continues inactive so long as to bring the case within the Statute of Limitations. A party may forfeit his right to an injunction by sleeping over his rights and allowing a grievance to continue for long time, especially when the defendant has incurred expenditure in the meantime. Acquiescence after a fiat accompli, if not prolonged beyond the verge of limitation, is not a bar to a right of suit already accrued. The only bar to the enforcement of a legal right is the lapse of time acquired by the statute of limitation to bar the remedy. It is thus clear that mere delay not amounting to assent will not apart from the statute of limitations, operate as a bar to a claim. In order to make it a bar there must be other circumstances rendering it inequitable to grant relief.
Doctrine of laches in the Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy due to conduct of such party amounting to waiver or due to neglect or the nature of conduct by not using remedy is such that it put the other party in a situation which is inconsistent with the position if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases lapse of time and delay are material. Claim of just relief cannot be defeated by delay, if not supported by any statute of limitation. Two things are significant in this regard, firstly the length of delay and secondly the nature of the acts done during the interval, as both may affect either party and cause a balance of justice or other, so as relates to remedy. An injunction is an equitable remedy and therefore, the law is settled that a plaintiff who is guilty of a wilful delay in approaching the Court is not normally entitled to ad interim orders.41 No hard and fast rule can be laid down can be laid down as to the period within which a suit for injunction is prayed for. Each case is to be decided with reverence to facts and circumstances of the case.42
An injunction must be obeyed while it lasts, even though it may be discharged subsequently. Where the temporary injunction has been disobeyed, the Court which issued the injunction, can take action, under the Code of Civil procedure. A Court issuing the interlocutory injunction is competent is competent to deal with the disobedience thereof even if the case has been dismissed. An injunction must be obeyed implicitly and faithfully even if it be illegal unless it is vacated by a competent Court.
A Court has an undoubted jurisdiction to commit for contempt a person, not included in an injunction order and not party to the action, who knowing of the injunction or the order, wilfully aids and abets in committing a breach thereof. Sub-rule 3 provides for the punishment not only of disobedience of the temporary injunction but also for a breach of any of the terms subject to which the injunction might have been granted. For attracting the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) rule 2. Order 39, CPC for commitment for contempt of Court, for service of the order has to be clearly and unequivocally proved and if necessary, the person proceeded against should also be given an opportunity to prove that he did not, in fact, receive any notice of the order regarding the injunction the injunction before the date of the alleged violation.
The Court which granted an injunction will be the Court competent to punish disobedience, but it must be set in motion by the aggrieved party and cannot act suo motu. A person disobeying an injunction should not suffer imprisonment on mere suspicion. There must be positive proof of the fact that he deliberately disobeyed an injunction before a Court should deprive him of his property or send him to prison. When proceedings are instituted to punish a defendant for breach of an injunction, the fact of his guilt must be clearly established to the satisfaction of the Court, for the proceedings being in effect for contempt are according to him, at least of a quasi criminal nature, and notwithstanding that no precise procedure has been laid down, it is expected that any Court which feels called upon to impose these penalties should proceed as nearly as possible in the same manner as possible as a Criminal Court would proceed. Where proceedings to challenge the validity of an injunction are pending in appeal before District Court; the High Court should not proceed against the defendant by way of contempt proceedings for disobedience of the injunction.
If there is any disobedience of the injunction order involved, that question should be left to be taken up and decided by the trial judge under the provisions of Rule 2, Order 39, CPC. The Court in its discretion order either arrest or attachment of property and is not bound in the first instance to attach the property and then only order imprisonment. Liability under rule 2 (3) for disobedience will only arise when it is established that the order disobeyed was within the knowledge of the party or where it can be reasonably inferred, that the party should be fastened with knowledge of such order. Intention is also an essential ingredient which has to be established and where there is no intention to violate the order the respondent cannot be punished under rule 2(3), Order 39, CPC. The mere fact that the order disobeyed has been subsequently vacated will not exempt the contemner from punishment. Though no procedure has been prescribed, yet the basic requirements of the procedure prescribed for criminal courts should be followed. Before imposing penalty the respondent has the right to be given an opportunity of hearing against the imposition of penalty. The fact that the suit is dismissed does not affect the powers of the court to punish disobedience.
In order to justify committal for breach of a prohibitive order it is not necessary that the order should have been served upon the party against whom it has been granted, if it is proved that he had notice of the order aliunde. Thus where it appears that that the party filed an objection petition to show cause as to why injunction should not be made and also prayed for vacating the injunction against him, it does not lie in his mouth to assert or even pretend that he was not aware of the injunction order. In such a case service of notice of injunction is not necessary. The judgment debtor in a decree for injunction must be given an opportunity of obeying the decree prior to the ordering of the issuance of the process against him.
(e) Mandatory Injunction
(i) Scope and applicability
Mandatory injunction orders the defendant to undo something he has agreed not to do. 43 A mandatory injunction is an order to the defendant to do some positive act, such as demolishing a building, and is thus restorative in its nature. This type of injunction is quite uncommon and is not usually issued where damages are an adequate remedy or where the injunction would require the constant supervision of the Court.44 A mandatory injunction may also be granted to restore the situation which would have prevailed but for the defendant's breach of contract, as to put back a tenant wrongfully evicted. 45
Preventive and restorative nature of mandatory injunction compelled the defendant to demolish or modify a building which he has erected 46 or to remove a road which he has constructed if what he has done is not in accordance with the terms of the contract. Such a drastic remedy must not be granted unless in the circumstances it will produce a fair result. The advantage that will accrue to the plaintiff must be balanced against the detriment likely to be suffered by the defendant. A plaintiff should not, be deprived of relief to which he is justly entitled merely because it will be disadvantageous to the defendant. On the other hand he should not be permitted to insist on a form of relief which will confer no appreciable benefit on himself and will be materially detrimental to the defendant.47
A mandatory injunction is issued to restore the status quo and the state of things that existed on the date of the institution of suit. Mandatory injunction is an order requiring the defendant to do some positive act for the purpose of putting an end to a wrongful state of things created by him, or otherwise in fulfillment of his legal obligations. Therefore before a suit can be filed for a mandatory injunction there must be an obligation on the part of the defendant to perform certain acts the breach of which obligation must be alleged by the plaintiff. A mandatory injunction during the pendency of a suit is a rare phenomenon. In order to seek mandatory injunction in a suit, it is not only the prima facie case which is to be shown but there should be a very prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and it should be shown that if the interim relief in the form of mandatory injunction is not granted the very purpose of the filing of the suit shall become frustrated.
In a suit for a mandatory injunction it is necessary to prove special injury or substantial damage. Where the defendant is guilty of a breach of the principles of elementary justice, the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction. Mandatory injunction at initial stage should be granted in exceptional circumstances, in rare cases and not as a matter of routine. Petitioner, for the purpose of obtaining injunction at initial stage when the Constitutional petition had not yet been admitted for regular hearing, was required to show existence of a strong prima facie case; that in case of refusal he would suffer irreparable loss and injury; and that balance of convenience was in favour of granting such relief. The considerations which apply to the grant of mandatory injunction are somewhat different from the considerations which govern the grant of prohibitory injunction although general principles for the grant of both of them are essentially the same. Section 55 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 enables the issue of an injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation and to compel performance of acts which are necessary to prevent such breach. A mandatory injunction cannot be granted unless there has been a demand and a refusal of that demand by the defendant.
Where High Court appeared to have acted in haste in the issuance of such injunction without affording opportunity of hearing to opposite side. Order in question, was not sustainable. The Court has essentially to adjudge if plaintiff's cause has any legal basis and whether the prayer made can lawfully be granted. Court has to see if effective decree can be passed in the terms of prayed for only against the persons or parties arrayed as defendants. Where such persons were deleted or were not impleaded as co-defendants, plaintiff could not succeed in his cause even if he had a genuine grievance and justifiable basis for his claim. It is only in very rare cases that a mandatory injunction is granted on an interlocutory application. No mandatory injunction would be granted where it would be rendered nugatory on the mere wish of the party against whom the order is passed.
The omission of the plaintiffs to move the Court for a temporary injunction is not sufficient to deprive the plaintiff of his right to a mandatory injunction. Where a delay amount to acquiescence, the case is not fit for mandatory injunction but pecuniary injunction may be granted. Acquiescence even if constructive would debar the right to mandatory injunction. Court may not only forbid the repetition of an injurious act, but also with a view to restore the status quo, direct that what has been done be undone. Court has also to determine what acts are necessary in order to prevent a breach of the obligation. 1249 Mandatory injunctions are subject to provisions of s. 56 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 so if the relief asked for is barred by any of the provisions of s. 56, then the Court will refuse mandatory injunction. Where the injury done to the plaintiff cannot be estimated and sufficiently compensated for by damages, or is so serious and material that the restoration of things to their former condition is the only method whereby justice can be adequately done, or where the injury complained of is in breach of an express agreement, the Court will exercise its jurisdiction and grant a mandatory injunction, even though the expense and trouble of carrying out the mandatory injunction will be far in excess of any sum which could reasonably be awarded by way of damages. 48
A mandatory injunction is a most exceptional remedy and one which is never to be applied except with the greatest safeguard for the prevention of waste as well as injustice. High Court appeared to have acted in hast in the issuance of such injunction without affording opportunity of hearing to opposite side. Order in question was, thus not sustainable. Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and while allowing the same, Supreme Court set aside order in question. Though the Courts are reluctant, except in very special circumstances, to order defendant to pull down a building erected in breach of a covenant, there is no rule which prevents the court from granting such as a mandatory relief even though the injury sought to be restrained have been completed before the commencement of the action. It is generally granted upon the same the same principles and subject to the same conditions as a perpetual injunction.
Thus if the injury can be otherwise compensated, the Courts will not normally make such a drastic order. Court would have the power to order demolition of building unauthorisedly constructed in breach of covenant, in case of its causing irreparable loss to the other side. Where compensation is possible or there has been undue delay, the Court will only grant a mandatory injunction to prevent extreme or very serious injury.
(ii) Discretionary relief
The grant of a mandatory injunction is always discretionary1254 and the Court will not
intervene in this unless it is shown that the defendant has deliberately ridden rough-shod over the plaintiff's rights 49 or that the plaintiff would be gravely prejudiced if the remedy were withheld.50 The jurisdiction to grant injunction is always discretionary and the Court before granting a mandatory injunction will weigh all facts and circumstances with a great caution as well as the balance of convenience and inconvenience, the conduct of the parties, the nature and extent of the right infringed will be taken into consideration.51
Like all forms of specific relief, a mandatory injunction cannot be claimed as of right, it depends upon the discretion of the Court. 52 Both in India and in England the granting of an injunction is always a matter for the discretion of the Court in every case. Where discretion has been properly exercised and is supported by valid reason a Court of appeal ordinarily refuses to interfere. But where a mandatory injunction is issued arbitrarily appellate interference, even in second appeal, is not only justifiable but legally necessary.53 The order of injunction is discretionary and a party appealing against such an order must show that the lower Court acted wrongly in not granting mandatory injunction.54 The fact that the damage done or apprehended is so small that pecuniary compensation will be a just and adequate remedy, and injunction will be needlessly oppressive, may be deemed in the discretion of the Court a sufficient reason for refusing this latter remedy.55 In Pakistan the jurisdiction to issue a mandatory injunction is held a discretionary jurisdiction and the power is to be exercised by Court rarely and in exceptional cases.
The Court will not enforce against an assignee of covenant or an affirmative covenant, whether such assignee takes with or without notice. Relief for mandatory injunction is discretionary and where the Court in its discretion declines to grant an injunction, the Court has jurisdiction to award damages though no damages may have been asked for by the plaintiff. It is the Court that compensates the plaintiff for the relief which, in its discretion, it does not award and the question of the plaintiff having to claim compensation really does not arise. The plaintiff cannot be compelled to ask for compensation in the alternative and he is entitled to insist on his claim for a mandatory injunction. The omission of the plaintiff to move the Court for a temporary injunction is not sufficient to deprive the plaintiff of his right to a mandatory injunction. In case of acts in violation of contract the Court looks to the express stipulation of the agreements in equity a person who enters into an agreement is bound to the literal performance thereof.
The Court cannot refuse it on the ground of inconvenience that would be caused to the defendant by the mandatory injunction., so much so that defendant was not allowed to set up the inconvenience to the public which will arise from his being compelled to perform his agreement. The Court will not grant it if the injury caused by the breach of the obligation is slight or trifling, granting injunction in such a case would be opposed to its object as it would be inequitable and work extreme hardship on the defendant. Where the breach of a restrictive covenant cause substantial damage the Court has no discretion to award damages in lieu of a mandatory injunction. This rule applies whether the covenant is broken by the original covenantor or by an assignee with notice.
(iii) Must be enforceable by court
If a mandatory injunction should be claimed in a contractual situation, it will be subject to very similar limitations to those imposed on application for specific performance.56 Even the presence of an express negative stipulation will not be found to be a sufficient ground for jurisdiction unless the contract is of a kind of which specific performance can be granted. If contract is not of a kind fit for specific performance, no injunction will be granted, even though negative words may be present.57 A mandatory injunction can be granted where the Court can enforce it. Where the injunction is not enforceable, the Court would not grant it. Thus a mandatory injunction directing a person to undertake the repairs and work of improvement involving engineering skill and expense cannot be granted as the Court is not capable of enforcing it. In Pakistan it is enunciated that the power to grant mandatory injunction is to be exercised in very exceptional and rare circumstances, subject to the conditions laid down in S.55, which requires that such relief can only be granted, where breach of an obligation is capable of specific enforcement by the Court. Where the agreement is not specifically enforceable relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted.
(f) Injunction to perform negative agreement
(i) Injunction to perform negative agreement
Court may in appropriate cases grant injunction to restrain the breach of a negative contract or of a negative stipulation in a contract. 58 Although grant of an injunction is normally discretionary, an injunction will normally be granted, without reference to the balance of convenience to restrain the breach of a negative contract or stipulation. 59 A negative contract or stipulation is one whereby a promisor covenants not to do something as not to carry on a particular trade 60 or not to ring church bells early in the morning.61
A negative stipulation, though not express, may be implied as in the case of an exclusive dealing agreement relating to a particular product 62 or an agreement to charter a ship to a particular person, the injunction being granted to restrain the promisor from buying or selling the product elsewhere or chartering the ship to another. Whether an agreement is affirmative or negative is a matter of substance and not of mere form, and the negative stipulation, whether it is express or implied, must be distinct, and it should be severable from the positive stipulations. The Court cannot compel A to send his customers to B, but the negative covenant not to carry on business, is enforced. When a man sells or assigns the goodwill of his business there is no implied contract not to set up another business of the same nature in the neighborhood, but there is an implied contract not to solicit the old customers, even though they come of their own accord. 63
Where the contract contains an express negative agreement the occasion for the application of the rule in s.57 is clear and the court has no discretion left. If the parties voluntarily and with a full comprehension of its consequences enter into a contract that a certain thing is not done and the person affected by the negative agreement cannot make any complaint. The other party is entitled to ask the Court to restrain him by an injunction from committing a breach of the negative covenant, unless he has by his own conduct or omission disentitled himself to the equitable relief. Thus there was an express negative agreement but injunction was refused as the parties were not on equal terms. An author who agreed to write a story for a publisher and not to write any others during the continuance of the agreement was restrained by an injunction. So, a purchaser of a land under an agreement not to build more than one dwelling-house was restrained from erecting a block of residential flats. The Court will neither enforce an express negative agreement, nor will it import a negative agreement and enforce by injunction, unless the person who makes the application has actually performed his part. The plaintiff must do all that is requisite on his part.
The whole benefit of the injunction is conditional upon the plaintiff's performing his part of the agreement, and the moment he fails to do any of the acts which he has engaged to do, and which were the consideration for the negative covenant, the injunction will be dissolved. So a contract to give a person a first refusal of property to plaintiff, involves a negative contract not to transfer the property to any one else without giving the first refusal to plaintiff and defendant is liable to be restrained. Defendants were owners of mica mines and there was an agreement with the plaintiffs that they would give them a standing advance of Rs. 55,000 for five years on condition that the plaintiffs were to appoint a manager and also to assist with their advice and that sales were to be made jointly by the plaintiffs and defendants. Held, that the plaintiffs were entitled to enforce the negative covenant that the defendants would not part with their mica without plaintiff's consent. It was competent to the court to grant the injunction, since an agreement for the letting of the ship to a certain charter party implied that she should not during the currency of the charter party be employed for any other person or purpose. Power of granting or refusing injunction in case of a contract consisting of a negative as well as an affirmative agreement is essentially a matter for judicial discretion. Prohibitory injunction can not be issued on the basis of implied negative covenant inferable from documents on record. Negative term may be held to be implied and which may be enforced by injunction it must be such which should be severable from the opposite obligation.
(ii) Negative Covenants and Specific Performance
In the case of contract containing both positive and negative covenants, the court can and will in a proper case restrain breaches of a negative with a view to the complete performance of the contract. This jurisdiction will be exercised even where the positive covenants are of such a nature as to be incapable of specific performance as in the case of a contract for personal service or for the sale of chattels provided that the negative part is capable of being separated from the rest of the contract and where the contract is one relating to personal services, is not unreasonable.64
Court will often decline to import q negative covenant into contracts where the contract would require constant supervision of the court, which it has declined to give, or if the terms sought to be enforced are too vague, uncertain and indefinite to enable the court to carry them out, or are subsidiary to the whole contract and the contract as a whole is incapable of specific performance. Nor will the court interfere by way of injunction when the contract though negative in form is affirmative in substance.65
When the positive part of the agreement cannot be enforced by an injunction the same object cannot be achieved by imputing an implied negative covenant in the agreement and enforcing it under the provisions of s. 57 of specific relief Act, 1877. Where there is an implied negative covenant in the contract and the positive covenant coupled with it can not be specifically enforced, the court is not disabled from applying s. 57 of specific relief Act, 1877 and granting an injunction with reference to the negative covenant. Where agreement contains both an affirmative agreement and a negative, express or implied agreement and there is a condition subsequent qualifying the negative one, the negative agreement is enforceable by the injunction if the condition is not fulfilled. Where the specific can not be granted, injunction can not be issued. If in a contract damages are inadequate relief or it depends upon personal qualifications or volition of the parties, specific performance cannot be ordered. If the contract is revocable, the contract with all its terms, positive and negative, is at an end and there can be no question of enforcing any of the term by way of specific performance or by injunction under s. 57 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
1 K.W. Wedderburn, Sutton and Shannon On Cotracts, Sixth ed. (1963), p.396, 397.
2 Witwood Chemical Co. v. Hardman  2 Ch. 416.
3 Story's Equity Jurisprudence, Art. 93.
4 Derek Roebuck, law of contract Text and materials, 1st ed. (1974), p.460
5 Ram Ranjit v. Dhup Narain, (1885) A W N 125.
6 Muhammad Sharif v. Abdul Baqi, PLD 1954 Pesh. 72.
7 A G v. Birmingham, etc., (1881) 17 Ch. D. 685.
8 Attorney v. Midland, 3 Ch. 100.
9 Macro Productions Ltd v. Pagola  KB 111.
10 Madras Ry. Co. v. Rust , 14 M. 18.
11 The Law Of Injunctions, S Masud-ul Hassan Khan Sabri, 1969 edn. Khyber Law Publishers, p.4.
12 Story, Equity Jurisprudence, 2nd ed. s.826.
13 Derek Roebuck, law of contract Text and materials, 1st ed. (1974), p.460
14 Ehrman v. Bartholomew,  1 Ch. 671.
15 Williams Robinson & Co. v. Heuer,  2 Ch 451.
16 Warner Brothers Pictures, Incorporated v. Nelson,  1 K.B. 209.
17 Page One Records Ltd v. Britton [ 1 WLR 157.
18 The Littlewoods Organisation v. Harris  All ER 1026.
19 Evening standard v. Henderson (1986) The Times 15 November CA.
20 Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hardman  2 Ch 416.
21 Jones & Sons Ltd. v. Tankerville, (1909) 2 Ch. 440, 443.
22 The Law Of Injunctions, S Masud-ul Hassan Khan Sabri, 1969 edn. Khyber Law Publishers, p.20.
23 Collect, Specific Relief Act, 5th ed., p. 366.
24 Derek Roebuck, law of contract Text and materials, 1st ed. (1974), p.460.
25 Lumely v. Wagner (1852) 1 de GM & G 604.
26 Stevens, 6 Cornell L.Q. 235.
27 Metropolitan Electric Supply Co., Ltd. v. Ginder,  2 Ch. 799.
28 Mortimer v. Beckett,  1 Ch. 571.
29 Witwood Chemical Co. v. Hardman  2 Ch. 416.
30 Donnell v. Bennett (1883) 22 Ch.D. 835.
31 Decro Wall International v. Practitioners in Marketing  1 WLR 361.
32 P A Read, Contract Law, 18th ed., p. 337.
33 The Law Of Injunctions, S Masud-ul Hassan Khan Sabri, 1969 edn. Khyber Law Publishers, p.34.
34 Specific Relief Act, 1877, section 53.
35 American Cyanamid v. Ethicon  1 All ER 504.
36 Fellowes v. Fisher  QB 122.
37 Paul H. Richards, LAW OF CONTRACT, 3rd ed., p.322.
38 Supreme Court Act 1981, s 50.
39 Leeds Industrial Co- Operative Society v. Slack  AC 851.
40 Johnson v. Agnew  AC 367.
41 Arts Council of Pakistan v. Riazuddin Pirzada, PLD 1969 Kar. 349.
42 Mansur Ahmad v. kalipada Chattopadhya, PLD 1959 Dacca 498.
43 P A Read, Contract Law, 18th edn., p.337.
44 Paul H. Richards, LAW OF CONTRACT. Third edn., p.321.
45 Luganda v. Service Hotels, Ltd.,  2 Ch. 209.
46 Lord manners v. Johnson (1875) 1 ChD 673.
47 Charrington v. Simons & Co. Ltd.,  1 WLR 725 at 730.
48 Halosbury Law Of England, Vol. 17, para. 476, p. 215.
49 Luganda v. Service Hotels, Ltd.,  2 Ch. 209.
50 Durell v. Pritchard (1865), L.R. 1 Ch. App. 244, at p. 250.
51 S.C. Sarkar, M.C. Sarkar's Specific Relief Act, Fifth edn., p. 391.
52 Tituram v. Cohen, 33 C. 203 (PC).
53 Behary Lal v. Sheo Lal, 3 N.L.R. 114.
54 Umesh Chandra v. Nibaran, 19 C.L.J. 305.
55 Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores, (1904) A.C. pp. 193, 212.
56 Paul H. Richards, LAW OF CONTRACT. Third edn., p.321.
57 Fry, Specific performance, 6th edn., 862; Halsbury's Law Of England, 2nd edn., Vol. 18, para. 86, pp. 62, 63.
58 A.G. Guest, Anson's Law of Contract, 26th ed., p. 520.
59 Doherty v. Allman (1878), 3 App. Cas. 709
60 Nordenfelt v.Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co., Ltd.,  A.C. 535.
61 Catt v. Tourle (1869), L.R. 4 Ch. App. 654.
62 Lord Strathocona SS Co. v. Dominion Coal co.,  A.C. 108.
63 Curl Bros v. Webster, 1904 I Ch. 685.
64 Halsbury's Law Of England, Vol. 17, para. 523, pp. 242-243.
65 Ibid, para 526, p. 246.
© 2014 Muhammad Hasan Akmal Qureshi