Courts must justify granting injunctions without notifying opposite party: Karnataka HC

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has stressed that trial courts are required to give valid reasons before issuing a temporary injunction without prior notice to the opposing party, in line with Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Justice H P Sandesh in his recent ruling, highlighted that legal provisions mandate clear reasoning for such injunctions to ensure judicial fairness and transparency. This decision arose during an appeal by Bowring Institute against a trial court’s injunction favouring one of its members, Sarwik S.

Sarwik, a life member of Bowring Institute, used the swimming pool during restricted hours and was reprimanded. Despite offering an apology, the institute issued a show-cause notice and later moved to revoke his membership.

On October 7, 2024, the institute recommended Sarwik’s removal, pending confirmation in a General Body Meeting scheduled for November 29, 2024.

Before this meeting, the trial court granted a temporary order preventing the institute from enforcing Sarwik’s removal.

Bowring Institute argued that the trial court failed to explain its decision to bypass notifying them before issuing the injunction.

The order was speculative and assumed that the General Body Meeting would support Sarwik’s removal.

The respondent, Sarwik, claimed that the appeal was procedurally invalid as ex parte injunctions cannot be challenged through such appeals.

After deliberation, the bench ruled that the trial court had not provided adequate justification for issuing the injunction without notice, stating that merely mentioning the review of documents was insufficient. The court clarified that the appeal was valid under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC when legal violations are evident.

The High Court annulled the trial court’s injunction and directed a fresh review of the case, instructing the trial court to address the matter within 30 days.