Ad-Interim Reliefs in Indian Law

Understanding Ad-Interim Reliefs in Indian Law: Principles and Practice

Introduction

In the realm of Indian civil and commercial litigation, ad-interim reliefs represent a critical judicial tool designed to provide immediate, albeit temporary, protection to a litigant's rights pending a more comprehensive hearing or the final adjudication of a dispute. The term "ad-interim" itself signifies a measure granted "for the meantime" or "in the intervening period." These reliefs are a subset of interim reliefs, which are, by their very nature, provisional and intended to preserve the status quo or prevent irreparable harm until the substantive issues can be decided. The Calcutta High Court in Webel Nicco Electronics Limited v. Mrs. Anima Roy (Calcutta High Court, 1997) observed that "interim" according to the dictionary means "a temporary or provisional arrangement." Similarly, the Bombay High Court in Ramesh Akre v. Mangalabai Pralhad Akre (2002 Mh LJ 913) noted that "interim reliefs are granted to serve the temporary purpose of protecting the plaintiffs interest so that the suit is not frustrated. By their very nature, interim reliefs last as long as the suit lasts."

Ad-interim reliefs are typically sought at the very commencement of legal proceedings, often before the opposing party has had a full opportunity to respond, particularly when urgency is paramount. This article delves into the nature, scope, governing principles, statutory basis, and practical application of ad-interim reliefs within the Indian legal framework, drawing upon key judicial pronouncements.

Nature and Scope of Ad-Interim Reliefs

Ad-interim reliefs are, by definition, temporary and provisional. They are granted to address an urgent need for protection before a formal interim application (such as a Notice of Motion) can be heard and decided after considering arguments from all parties. As articulated in Webel Nicco Electronics Limited v. Mrs. Anima Roy (Calcutta High Court, 1997), interim relief is "prayed for at the commencement of the proceedings or at least before the conclusion of the main proceeding. It would be temporary in nature and would continue until and be subject to the final determination of the dispute or the lis."

A crucial characteristic of such reliefs is that they are ancillary to the main relief sought in the proceedings. The Supreme Court's observations in The State Of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta (AIR 1952 SC 12), referenced in Webel Nicco, establish that interim relief can be granted only in aid of, and as ancillary to, the main relief. Consequently, "if the final relief cannot be granted in terms as prayed for, the interim relief in the same terms cannot be granted."

The terminology can sometimes be nuanced. "Interim relief" generally refers to orders passed pending the final disposal of the suit. "Ad-interim relief" typically refers to an order passed pending the disposal of an application for interim relief (e.g., a Notice of Motion), often granted for a short duration until the respondent can appear and contest the interim application. This is evident in cases like Quantum Securities Private Limited And Others v. New Delhi Television Limited (Supreme Court Of India, 2015) and Samir Narain Bhojwani v. Aurora Properties And Investments And Another (Supreme Court Of India, 2018), where parties sought "ad interim reliefs" pending the hearing of their interim applications. The Bombay High Court in Prem Bhagwandas Harjani v. Naraindas Vensimal Harjani (2014 SCC ONLINE BOM 525) clarified that ad-interim reliefs are "reliefs of an urgent nature granted pending the disposal of the Notice of Motion which is an application for interim reliefs." If granted without hearing the opposing party due to extreme urgency, it is termed an "ex-parte ad-interim relief."

Governing Principles for Grant of Ad-Interim Reliefs

Courts in India are guided by a well-established set of principles when considering applications for ad-interim reliefs, particularly injunctions. The grant of such relief is discretionary, and this discretion must be exercised judicially, based on sound legal principles.

The Three-Pillared Test

The cornerstone for granting temporary injunctions, including ad-interim injunctions, is the satisfaction of a three-pronged test, as reiterated in numerous judgments including Best Sellers Retail (India) Private Limited v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited And Others (2012 SCC 6 792), citing Kishoresinh Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corpn ((2009) 11 SCC 229):

  1. Prima Facie Case: The applicant must demonstrate that there is a serious question to be tried and that, on the facts before the court, there is a probability of the applicant being entitled to the relief sought. This does not mean a case proved to the hilt but one which is not frivolous or vexatious (Seema Arshad Zaheer And Others v. Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai And Others, 2006 SCC 5 282; Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, 1994 SCC 4 225).
  2. Balance of Convenience: The court must be satisfied that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction. This involves weighing the substantial mischief or inconvenience that is likely to be caused to the applicant if the injunction is refused against the inconvenience likely to be caused to the opposing party if it is granted (Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. And Others v. Coca Cola Co. And Others, 1995 SCC 5 545; Wander Ltd. And Another v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 SCC SUPP 1 727).
  3. Irreparable Injury/Loss: The applicant must show that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted – an injury that cannot be adequately compensated by damages. As held in Best Sellers Retail (India) Private Limited, if the claimant has an adequate alternative remedy, such as damages, the necessity for injunctive relief is negated. The injury must be material, i.e., one that cannot be undone or adequately repaired by monetary compensation (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719, cited in Best Sellers Retail; Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese And Minerals (P) Ltd., 2007 SCC 7 125).

The Supreme Court in BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED (Supreme Court Of India, 2024) recently reiterated that while granting interim relief, the court must provide detailed reasons and analyze how this three-fold test is satisfied.

Additional Considerations for Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Injunctions

Given that ex-parte ad-interim injunctions are granted without hearing the respondent, courts exercise even greater caution. The Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das (1994 SCC 4 225), as quoted in BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, laid down additional factors:

  • Whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff.
  • Whether the refusal of ex-parte injunction would involve greater injustice than its grant.
  • The time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained of.
  • Whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for some time.
  • The applicant must show utmost good faith.
  • Even if granted, the ex-parte injunction should be for a limited period, and reasons must be recorded (Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Others, 1993 SCC 3 161, cited in Morgan Stanley).

Judicial Discretion and Appellate Review

The grant of ad-interim relief is a discretionary power of the court. An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or where the court has ignored settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions (Wander Ltd. And Another v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 SCC SUPP 1 727; Seema Arshad Zaheer And Others v. Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai And Others, 2006 SCC 5 282).

Statutory Framework and Judicial Interpretation

The power to grant ad-interim reliefs, particularly injunctions, is primarily rooted in procedural laws, though principles from substantive laws also play a role.

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC are the principal provisions empowering civil courts to grant temporary injunctions. These rules are invoked for ad-interim reliefs as well (Best Sellers Retail (India) Private Limited; Quantum Securities Private Limited And Others v. New Delhi Television Limited).
  • Specific Relief Act, 1963: While temporary injunctions are regulated by the CPC, the principles underlying the grant of specific relief, such as those concerning the enforceability of contracts or prevention of wrongs, often inform the court's discretion (Best Sellers Retail (India) Private Limited; Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese And Minerals (P) Ltd.).
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9 allows parties to an arbitration agreement to apply to a court for interim measures of protection. The Supreme Court in Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese And Minerals (P) Ltd. (2007 SCC 7 125) clarified that the power under Section 9 is not unbridled and must be exercised in consonance with the general principles governing the grant of interim relief under the Specific Relief Act and the CPC.
  • Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts have been held to possess the power to grant interim relief as a matter incidental to the main dispute referred for adjudication, under Section 10(4) of the Act (Management Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers' Union, AIR 1959 SC 1342, cited in Webel Nicco and Mahamantri, Food Industries Employees Union, Ajmer v. The Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer & Anr., Rajasthan High Court, 2013).
  • Constitution of India: Article 226(3) provides for the vacation of an ex-parte interim order made by a High Court if an application is made by the aggrieved party and is not disposed of within two weeks. This provision underscores the temporary nature of ex-parte orders (Maharashtra Power Transmission Structure Power Limited v. U.p. Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Gujarat High Court, 2020).
  • Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 12A mandates pre-institution mediation unless the suit contemplates "urgent interim relief." The determination of whether urgent interim relief is contemplated is based on the pleadings and reliefs sought by the plaintiff (M/S SAGAR RATNA RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. HILL VIEW HOTEL AND RESTAURANT, Delhi High Court, 2024, citing Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815).

Application in Specific Contexts

The principles governing ad-interim reliefs are applied across various types of disputes:

Conclusion

Ad-interim reliefs serve as an indispensable mechanism in the Indian legal system for providing swift, provisional justice and preventing the frustration of a litigant's rights before a full hearing is possible. Their grant is predicated on a careful balancing act by the judiciary, weighing the urgency and potential for irreparable harm to the applicant against the rights of the respondent and the principles of natural justice. The established three-pronged test of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, supplemented by specific considerations for ex-parte orders, ensures that this potent judicial power is exercised judiciously. While essential for preserving the subject matter of the dispute and ensuring that the final relief, if granted, is not rendered infructuous, the temporary and often ex-parte nature of ad-interim reliefs necessitates strict adherence to procedural safeguards and a reasoned approach by the courts.

Key References