[Order 39 Rule 1] Injunction Can't Be Granted If Plaintiff Fails To Show Irreparable Loss & Balance Of Convenience In His Favour: Bombay HC
![[Order 39 Rule 1] Injunction Cant Be Granted If Plaintiff Fails To Show Irreparable Loss & Balance Of Convenience In His Favour: Bombay HC](https://www.verdictum.in/h-upload/2023/06/17/1500x900_1512687-justice-ms-jawalkar-bombay-hc.webp "[Order 39 Rule 1] Injunction Cant Be Granted If Plaintiff Fails To Show Irreparable Loss & Balance Of Convenience In His Favour: Bombay HC")
Considering that the Appellant(Plaintiff) had failed to show that he would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted nor the balance of convenience was in his favour, the Bombay High Court refused to grant an injunction order against the second Respondent and held that, for want of amendment or modification in the existing contract, the parties cannot be compelled to execute the terms as directed by MIDC to CETP to device mechanism to charge based on effluent quantity only.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice M.S. Jawalkar observed that “Admittedly, in view of the terms of the agreement the effluent charges were to be applied based on the water intake and not based on the actual quantity of effluent discharged by the concerned industries. Though there were minutes of meetings showing that the members agreed to install such meters to measure the discharge of effluent, however, it was not installed by all the industries nor there was any amendment/modification to the earlier agreement. As such, for want of amendment or modification in the existing contract, the parties cannot be compelled to execute the terms as directed by MIDC to CETP to device mechanism to charge based on effluent quantity only.”
Advocate Sham Dewani appeared for the Appellant/Plaintiff, whereas Advocates A.C. Jaltare, S.C. Mehadia, and R.M. Bhangde appeared for the Respondents.
The Appellant company engaged in manufacturing synthetic fibre yarn and synthetic staple fibre, entered into a tripartite agreement with the first Respondent (Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Limited) and third Respondent (Butibori Manufacturers Association), to help small scale industries by treating their effluent at lower costs. It was the case of the Appellant that, given the stringent norms by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), the Appellant had undergone various changes and a decision was taken by the Manager to recycle and reuse the water and to make mechanism to reutilize treated effluent.
Accordingly, they filed a report before the first Respondent that effluent treatment charges should be applied based on the actual discharge of effluent and not based on water intake, which was accepted. However, despite a resolution passed to that effect, the second Respondent continued charging effluent treatment charges based on water intake. The Appellant challenged it by filing a suit and sought an injunction before the Trial Court, which was rejected. Hence, the Appellant approached the High Court.
Based upon the submission made by the counsels, the Bench observed that there was an agreement between the parties that charges shall be made according to the water intake.
"As such, no prima facie case made out by the plaintiff, even balance of convenience does not lie in favour of plaintiff. Even there is no loss which can be said to be irreparable. The plaintiff can recover the amount in case plaintiff succeed. In view of this position, I do not see any perversity in the impugned order. The order passed by learned Trial Court is perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the matter. There is no prima facie case made out by the plaintiff nor any balance of convenience in its favour. The plaintiff would not suffer any irreparable loss as the suit is for recovery of amount. After final adjudication, if plaintiff succeeds, it will get his amount recovered", noted the Court.
While appreciating the fact that the Trial Court pronounced its order based on the agreement on record which provides for charges to be applied as per water intake, the Bench said that provision of Order 39, Rule 1 will not apply to the present case. The Bench further observed that the Appellant was not able to prove that he would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction order is not granted.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: M/s Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.
