Case: Purshottam Vishandas Raheja  Vs. Shrichand Vishandas Raheja(D)Tr.Lrs.&amp;Ors

coming within the exceptions noticed in the said judgment. In our opinion, the case of the respondent herein does not come under any one of those exceptions and even on facts it is not such a case which calls for the issuance of an interim mandatory injunction directing the possession being handed over to the respondent." 20. In Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another vs. Praveen Kumar Singh [reported in (2006) 3 SCC 312 ], this Court once again reiterated the principles with respect to the interim mandatory injunction in paragraph 6 in the following words: "6. An interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted. It is an order that is passed only in circumstances which are clear and the prima facie materials clearly justify a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of the parties to the litigation and the interests of justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored by way of an interim mandatory injunction." 21. In our view, the learned Single Judge has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and thereafter passed the limited interim order whereby documents for sale of the flats will continue to be signed by the Respondents, though, the monies coming into the bank account thereafter will be utilized only for the purposes that are necessary, as stated in paragraph 22 extracted above. The appellants have not been directed to be removed from the property inasmuch as they were the people on the spot carrying on the development prior to filing of the suit. The order sought by the respondents, if granted, would mean granting all the reliefs and a sort of pre-trial decree without the opportunity to the Appellants to have their plea examined with respect to the family arrangement, which plea is supported by their sisters.22. The test to be applied to assess the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge would be whether the order is so arbitrary, capricious or perverse that it should be interfered at an interlocutory stage in an intra-Court appeal. In Wander Ltd. and another vs. Antox India P.Ltd. [reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 727], a bench of Three Judges of this Court has laid down the law in this respect which has been consistently followed. In that matter, Appellant No.1 being the registered proprietor of a Trade Mark had entered into an agreement with the Respondent permitting it to manufacture certain pharmaceutical product. On the basis of that arrangement, the respondent applied for the requisite license from the authorities concerned. In view the dispute between the parties, the Appellant called upon the Respondent to stop manufacturing the particular product, and entered into an arrangement with another company. The Respondent filed a suit and sought a temporary injunction to restrain the Appellant and its new nominee-company from manufacturing the products concerned. This was on the basis of continued user in respect of the Trade Mark of the product by the Respondent. It was contended that user was in his own right. A learned Single Judge of the High Court declined to grant the interim injunction which was granted in appeal by the Appellate Bench of Madras High Court. This Court, in its judgment, held that the Appellate Bench had erred firstly, in misdirecting with respect to the nature of its powers in appeal and secondly, in basing its judgment on the alleged user of the Trade Mark. A bench of Three Judge of this Court laid down the law in this behalf in paragraph 14 of the judgment which is as follows: "14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial courts exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph. (1960) 3 SCR 713 ....These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton... the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case.The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle." It is to be noted that the proposition laid down has been consistently followed thereafter. 23. For the reasons stated above, in our view, the present case, is not one where mandatory interim injunction, as sought by the Respondents was justified. The learned Single Judge had passed a reasoned order, and, in no way, it could be said that he had exercised the discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or perverse manner, or had ignored the settled principles of law regarding grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. There was no reason for the Appellate Bench to interfere and set aside that order. 24.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In our view, the learned Single Judge has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and thereafter passed the limited interim order whereby documents for sale of the flats will continue to be signed by the Respondents, though, the monies coming into the bank account thereafter will be utilized only for the purposes that are necessary, as stated in paragraph 22 extracted above. The appellants have not been directed to be removed from the property inasmuch as they were the people on the spot carrying on the development prior to filing of the suit. The order sought by the respondents, if granted, would mean granting all the reliefs and a sort of pre-trial decree without the opportunity to the Appellants to have their plea examined with respect to the family arrangement, which plea is supported by their sisters.22. The test to be applied to assess the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge would be whether the order is so arbitrary, capricious or perverse that it should be interfered at an interlocutory stage in an intra-Court appeal. In Wander Ltd. and another vs. Antox India P.Ltd. [reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 727], a bench of Three Judges of this Court has laid down the law in this respect which has been consistently followed. In that matter, Appellant No.1 being the registered proprietor of a Trade Mark had entered into an agreement with the Respondent permitting it to manufacture certain pharmaceutical product. On the basis of that arrangement, the respondent applied for the requisite license from the authorities concerned. In view the dispute between the parties, the Appellant called upon the Respondent to stop manufacturing the particular product, and entered into an arrangement with another company. The Respondent filed a suit and sought a temporary injunction to restrain the Appellant and its new nominee-company from manufacturing the products concerned. This was on the basis of continued user in respect of the Trade Mark of the product by the Respondent. It was contended that user was in his own right. A learned Single Judge of the High Court declined to grant the interim injunction which was granted in appeal by the Appellate Bench of Madras High Court. This Court, in its judgment, held that the Appellate Bench had erred firstly, in misdirecting with respect to the nature of its powers in appeal and secondly, in basing its judgment on the alleged user of the Tradeour view, the present case, is not one where mandatory interim injunction, as sought by the Respondents was justified. The learned Single Judge had passed a reasoned order, and, in no way, it could be said that he had exercised the discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or perverse manner, or had ignored the settled principles of law regarding grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. There was no reason for the Appellate Bench to interfere and set aside that order.