Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay High Court Injunction; Directs Reservation of 550 sq ft Unit Pending Trial

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard an appeal against an order of the High Court of Bombay which had restored interim injunction restraining the appellant from dispossessing Respondent No.1 or creating any third‑party interest in the disputed premises. The appeal challenged the High Court’s decision to grant injunction during the pendency of a suit in the Small Causes Court concerning alleged tenancy and partnership rights over a portion of a larger property.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 30.07.2024 and held that the injunction had been wrongly granted because the requisite conditions for interim relief were not satisfied on the facts. The Court noted that the appellant was the absolute owner of the property and that the disputed 550 square feet constituted only a small fraction of the total 22,000 square feet, while ongoing redevelopment plans and a prior leave and license agreement stood frustrated by the injunction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The law governing the grant of interim injunction is well-settled. This Court, through a catena of decisions, has consistently held that before granting an interim injunction, the Court must satisfy itself of three essential prerequisites: firstly, the existence of a prima facie case in favour of the applicant evincing a reasonable probability of success at trial; secondly, that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunctive relief; and thirdly, that the applicant would suffer irreparable injury or harm not adequately compensable in damages if the injunction is refused. It is only when these three conditions are cumulatively fulfilled that an interim injunction ought to be granted.” The Court further stated, verbatim, that “we are of the considered view that the High Court erred in granting the injunction in favour of Respondent No.1.” To balance equities, the Court directed that the appellant reserve one unit measuring about 550 square feet in the developed property as security for any rights that Respondent No.1 may ultimately establish.

Background The dispute arose from ownership and tenancy relations over a plot in Chembur, Mumbai. The appellant’s father had leased 11,250 sq ft of the larger property to a partnership firm M/s Silver Chem (Respondent No.2) in 1972; the appellant succeeded to the property on his father’s death. The appellant terminated the lease and initiated an eviction suit in 2008; various impleadment applications by Respondent No.1, who claimed an undivided share and ran a business from part of the suit structure, were allowed and later set aside in revision. Family members of the Vijan family executed a Family Settlement Agreement in June 2021 which, according to Respondent No.1, allotted him 550 sq ft and led to a subsequent lease/licence to a third party. The partnership purportedly surrendered tenancy rights and the appellant withdrew the eviction suit unconditionally in January 2023 and executed a leave and licence agreement in April 2023 for redevelopment.

Respondent No.1 filed a fresh suit (R.A.D. Suit No.519/2023) claiming tenancy rights over 550 sq ft and obtained interim protection from the Small Causes Court on 27.04.2023, later confirmed and briefly vacated on appeal before being restored by the High Court. The High Court treated Respondent No.1 as a tenant/joint tenant and granted injunction; the appellant challenged that order before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the three‑fold test for interim injunction, found that Respondent No.1 had not established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm favoured the appellant because the injunction stalled a substantial redevelopment despite the disputed portion being small. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned High Court order, but directed reservation of one 550 sq ft unit in the developed property as security in case the Small Causes Court later adjudicated in Respondent No.1’s favour. The Court expressly stated that “this order does not express any opinion on the merits of the tenancy dispute pending before the Small Causes Court,” and directed that the Small Causes Court proceed to adjudicate R.A.D. Suit No.519/2023 expeditiously.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 663 Case Title: Tushar Himatlal Jani v. Jasbir Singh Vijan & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Divan, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Senior Counsel