- (1.) M/s Original Mineral Industries filed a suit for injunction restraining the Rajasthan State Electricity Board from realizing Rs. 1,03,715. 45 on the ground that in 1983 when the said respondent took electricity connection of 102 H. P. to run the machine of the manufacture of Dolomite Powder and Chips, it was given to understand that its supply would be regular and that the same would be metered. It also moved an application for temporary injunction restraining the Raj. State Electy. Board from realizing the amount as the meter was defective and that the same did not record the correct measurement.
(2.) THE application was contested by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and by the order dated 13. 3. 89 the same was rejected. THE respondent had deposited Rs. 1,03,715. 45. THE deposit was made on the conditional order passed by the trial court that if the same was made, the electricity supply would not be disconnected. The appellate court set-aside the order of the trial court and granted the injunction in the terms prayed for. Against the judgment of the appellate court dated 9. 4. 1992, the present revision has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appellate interfering in appeal preferred against the order of the trial court rejecting the injunction application. It was submitted that the appellate court did not consider the three requirements of granting injunction and allowed the application of the respondent without considering the same. Three requirements are; (i) prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; and (iii) irreparable injury. No court can grant an injunction in favour of any party without giving findings on these three. The petitioner's counsel further urged that a court of appeal has limited jurisdiction in the discretionary matters of granting injunction or refusing to do so. It cannot interfere with the first court's order without finding that the same was arbitrary. Interference by the appellate court should be very sparingly exercised. The appellate court was required to consider the question of balance of convenience. In American Cyanamid Co. V. Ethicon Ltd. (1) Lord Diplock laid down : - "the governing principle is that the Court should first considered whether if the plaintiffs were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to a permanent injunction, he would be adequately compensated by an award of damages for the loss he would have sustained as a result of the defendant's continuing to do what was sought to be enjoined between the time of the application and the time of the trial. If damages in measure recoverable at common law would be adequate remedy and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them, no interlocutory injunction should normally be granted, however strong the plaintiff's claim appeared to be at that stage. "
(3.) THE appellate court has not given any finding. The usual purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to preserve the status quo. However, the truth of the matter is that no real principles can be laid down. Lord Denning MR said in Hubbard v. Vosper (2): - "in considering whether to grant an interlocutory injunction the right course for a judge is to look at the whole case. He must have regard not only to the strength of the claim but also to the strength of the defence, and then decide what is best to be done. Sometimes it is best to grant an injunction so as to maintain the status quo until the trial. At other times it is best not to impose a restraint upon the defendant but leave him free to go ahead. . . . . The remedy by interlocutory injunction is so useful that it should be kept flexible and discretionary. It must not be made the subject of strict rules. " It is settled that when an interlocutory injunction is sought, the plaintiff must prove that if the remedy were not granted irreparable injury would result. 'irreparable injury' means no more than injury which cannot properly be compensated in damages. ;