Injunction when refused
Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with injunction when refused. An injunction cannot be granted-- (a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings; The Act came into force on 01 Mar 1964.
An injunction cannot be granted--
(a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings;
(b) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not sub-ordinate to that from which the injunction is sought;
(c) to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body;
(d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter;
(e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced;
(f) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance;
(g) to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced;
(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust;
1[(ha) if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of relevant facility related thereto or services being the subject]matter of such project.
(i) when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to be the assistance of the court;
(j) when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.
Section 41, The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad Chief Officer vs Gangaram Narayan Ambekar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Environmental disputes involving substantial questions relating to environment, including enforcement of legal rights relating to environment, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal under Section 29 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, and civil courts are barred from entertaining such disputes even if the suit was filed before the NGT was established. A suit for permanent injunction simpliciter without seeking declaratory relief is not maintainable when challenging administrative decisions. A quia timet action for preventive injunction requires proof of imminent danger and substantial irreparable harm, not mere apprehension or possibility of future nuisance. The burden of proof in establishing actionable nuisance rests on the plaintiff, and weakness in the defendant's evidence cannot shift this burden to the defendant.
On this section: Section 41(f) provides that injunction cannot be granted to prevent an act on the ground of nuisance if it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance. Section 41(h) provides that injunction cannot be granted when equally efficacious relief can be obtained by other usual modes of proceeding. The Court held both provisions precluded granting injunction in this case.
-
Dinesh Singh Thakur vs Sonal Thakur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An anti-suit injunction restraining a party from prosecuting matrimonial proceedings in a foreign court will not be granted merely because the ground for divorce is not available under the personal law governing the parties in India, or because parallel proceedings exist in Indian courts, unless the party seeking the injunction demonstrates that: (1) the other party is amenable to personal jurisdiction of the Indian court, (2) grave injustice would result if the injunction is not granted, and (3) the principle of comity of courts is respected. The mere existence of concurrent jurisdiction and parallel proceedings does not constitute grave injustice warranting interference with foreign court proceedings.
On this section: Injunction cannot be granted to restrain a person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit unless restraint is necessary to prevent multiplicity of proceedings; court found no multiplicity warranting injunction
-
Suresh Dhanuka vs Sunita Mohapatra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Deed of Assignment transferring intellectual property rights (specifically, 50% ownership of a trade mark) 'absolutely and forever' cannot be unilaterally revoked by the assignor upon termination of the underlying business agreement. A negative covenant in such a Deed (prohibiting use or registration of the trade mark except through the assignee) is enforceable through injunction under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and does not violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, because it restrains use of specific intellectual property, not the carrying on of trade or business. An interim order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, maintaining status quo pending arbitration is justified and within the jurisdiction of the District Court to protect the rights of both parties.
On this section: Specifies circumstances in which injunction cannot be granted to prevent breach of contract whose performance cannot be specifically enforced. Cited to establish the general principle that injunctions are not available for affirmative obligations that cannot be specifically enforced.
-
Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi vs Rajat Vidyarthi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a testator sets apart a specific sum of money in a will for the benefit of identified beneficiaries and directs that an immoveable property be purchased from that sum, the property so purchased vests absolutely in the beneficiaries to the extent of the amount contributed by the testator, notwithstanding that the property may be purchased in the testator's name or that the testator uses non-technical language such as 'wakf' or creates a trustee structure. The testator's true intention must be ascertained from the will read as a whole in the context of surrounding circumstances, including the testator's family situation, the position of the beneficiaries, and post-testamentary conduct of family members. The use of precautionary measures such as trustees and limited disbursement provisions does not negate absolute ownership but merely reflects the testator's concern for prudent management of the funds.
On this section: Provides that no injunction can be granted against a co-owner in relation to joint family property. The trial court relied on this provision to dismiss the suit for injunction.
-
Suresh Dhanuka vs Sunita Mohapatra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a deed of assignment transfers property (including intellectual property such as trademark) absolutely and forever, with clear conditions stipulating that neither party can use or register the mark independently after termination of the joint venture, the assignor cannot unilaterally revoke such assignment. The enforcement of negative covenants contained in such deeds through injunctions is permissible under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provided the covenant is not merely a restraint on trade under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, but rather a restriction on use of specific property. In such circumstances, an interim order restraining the assignor from using the trademark pending arbitration is justified to maintain status quo and protect both parties' rights, and such order should not be interfered with unless it is clearly arbitrary or unjust. The adequacy of money compensation must be assessed in light of the proprietary nature of the interest acquired; where a party has acquired a substantial proprietary right in valuable intellectual property with associated goodwill through a clear deed, injunctive relief is the appropriate remedy, not monetary compensation alone.
On this section: Section 42 was invoked to enforce negative covenants in the deed of assignment; Court held that enforcement of negative covenant (not to use trademark) was permissible as it was distinct from restraining trade under Section 27 ICA
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… An instructive judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court reported as Muppudathi Pillai v. Krishnaswami Pillai, AIR 1960 Mad 1 involved the determination of the scope of section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (section 33(1) of the 1963 Act is the pari materia provision). This judgment, after referring to section 41, then referred to section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (which is the pari materia provision to section 31 of the 1963 Act). The Court then went on to notice the …
-
… In support of this argument, learned senior counsel placed reliance on Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Western Company of North America (1987) 1 SCC 496, wherein this Court, while interpreting the provision of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has held as follows:- "18….This provision, in our opinion, will be attracted only in a fact-situation where an injunction is sought to restrain a party from instituting or prosecuting any action in a court in India which is either of coordinate jurisdiction or is higher to the …
-
… The first question posed is how an approach to the superior Court i.e. the High Court, under Section 111 of the 1958 Act, can be contingent on a permission or grant of leave by a court of subordinate jurisdiction. The above is also contended to be plainly contrary to the provisions of Section 41 (b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is also urged that Section 32 of the 1958 Act provides a defence to a claim of infringement which is open to be taken both in a proceeding for rectification as well as in a suit. The said defence statutorily available to a contesting party cannot be foreclosed by a deemed …
Questions about Section 41
What have the courts held on Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act?
Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad Chief Officer vs Gangaram Narayan Ambekar (06 May 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Section 41(f) provides that injunction cannot be granted to prevent an act on the ground of nuisance if it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance. Section 41(h) provides that injunction cannot be granted when equally efficacious relief can be obtained by other usual modes of proceeding. The Court held both provisions precluded granting injunction in this case. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Specific Relief Act 41, section 41 Specific Relief Act, section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. People searching for it also type specific relief act 41 h and specific relief act 41 ha. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad Chief Officer vs Gangaram Narayan Ambekar (06 May 2020).
What should I read with Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act come into force?
Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, cited as Specific Relief Act 41, came into force on 01 Mar 1964, having been enacted on 13 Dec 1963. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 12. Specific performance of part of contract391 words
- 28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed382 words
- 15. Who may obtain specific performance330 words
- 13. Rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no title or imperfect title309 words
- 26. When instrument may be rectified292 words
- 20. Substituted performance of contract269 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.