This concern was also reflected in the final judgment passed by the top court, which noted that, “The ad-interim injunction granted by the trial judge amounts to unreasoned censorship which cannot be countenanced.”
The bench added that the error committed by the trial Judge was perpetuated by the High Court in its March 14 order.
The Supreme Court proceeded to set aside both orders, and reiterated that three tests must be satisfied to pass an injunction order, namely: that (i) a prima facie case exists, (ii) that the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant of injunction and (iii) that an irreparable injury would be caused if no injunction is granted.
“The three-fold test cannot merely be recorded as a mantra without looking into the facts on the basis of which an injunction has been sought,” the Supreme Court added, before setting aside the orders of the courts below.
Source: Barandbench
