Preventive Relief — Injunctions Generally, Temporary, Perpetual, Mandatory and Prohibitory — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. Under Section 36, preventive relief is granted by injunction:

   • As a matter of right
   • At the discretion of the court, temporary or perpetual (correct answer)
   • Only by the Supreme Court
   • Only in criminal cases

   Explanation. Section 36 makes injunctions always discretionary, and always either temporary or perpetual in form.

2. Under Section 37(2), a perpetual injunction can only be granted:

   • At any interim stage of a suit
   • By a decree at the hearing, upon the merits of the suit (correct answer)
   • Without any trial
   • Only against the Government

   Explanation. A perpetual injunction is final relief, granted only by a decree after a full hearing on the merits.

3. Which of the following is NOT one of the four grounds under Section 38(3) for a perpetual injunction protecting property?

   • The defendant is a trustee of the property for the plaintiff
   • No standard exists to ascertain the actual damage
   • The defendant is a foreign national (correct answer)
   • Money compensation would not afford adequate relief

   Explanation. Nationality is irrelevant; the four grounds are trustee-relationship, no damage standard, inadequate money compensation, and avoiding multiplicity of suits.

4. A mandatory injunction under Section 39 differs from a prohibitory injunction because it:

   • Only stops an act from happening
   • Compels active performance of certain acts, not merely stopping something (correct answer)
   • Applies only to criminal matters
   • Cannot ever be granted at an interim stage

   Explanation. A mandatory injunction compels active performance/undoing, unlike a prohibitory injunction which only stops an act.

5. In Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, the Supreme Court held that an interlocutory mandatory injunction requires:

   • Only a prima facie arguable case
   • A strong case, serious or irreparable injury, and a favourable balance of convenience (correct answer)
   • No discretion by the court at all
   • Automatic grant if requested

   Explanation. At the interim stage the plaintiff must show a strong case, serious or irreparable injury and a balance of convenience in his favour (Dorab Cawasji Warden).

6. Under Section 41(e), an injunction cannot be granted to prevent the breach of:

   • A contract that would be specifically enforced
   • A contract whose performance would NOT be specifically enforced (correct answer)
   • Any contract at all
   • A contract involving the Government

   Explanation. Section 41(e) links directly to Section 14 — an injunction is barred for a contract that itself cannot be specifically enforced.

7. Section 41(ha), inserted in 2018, refuses an injunction that would:

   • Help a small business
   • Impede or delay an infrastructure project or interfere with its facility/service (correct answer)
   • Restrain trespass
   • Enforce a negative agreement

   Explanation. Section 41(ha) bars an injunction that would impede/delay an infrastructure project or interfere with an already-operating facility/service.

8. Under Section 42, an injunction to perform a negative agreement can be granted even where the positive agreement cannot be specifically enforced, PROVIDED:

   • The defendant consents
   • The plaintiff has not failed to perform the contract so far as it binds him (correct answer)
   • The contract is registered
   • Both parties are companies

   Explanation. The proviso to Section 42 requires the plaintiff to have performed his own binding obligations under the contract.

9. Which of the following is NOT one of the three tests for a temporary injunction?

   • Prima facie case
   • Balance of convenience
   • Irreparable injury
   • Proof that the plaintiff owns the property (correct answer)

   Explanation. The three tests are prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh).