Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 are two closely related laws governing the enforcement of interim orders. Specifically, they are rules of the Civil Procedure Code, applicable in India, that deal with the acceptance, execution, and implementation of interim orders of civil courts.
Order 39 Rule 1 dictates that a court may, in any suit, grant an interim order stating that a particular party should do a certain act or should not do a certain act. Any such interim order is to be recognized as a decree as if it had been passed as a final decree.
Order 39 Rule 2 states that either party shall be at liberty to applying to the Court or to a Judge who passed the order or to the Court or the Judge having jurisdiction for the execution of the order, or for the modification or discharge of the same.
The order can be modified or discharged in accordance with the law for the time being in force. Furthermore, the Court or the Judge shall have the power to impose terms, grant adjournments and determine the costs of the application, as the circumstances of the case may require.
In summary, Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 are two closely related laws pertaining to the recognition, execution, and implementation of interim orders by civil courts in India.
Table of Contents
What is application under Order 39 Rule 1?
Application under Order 39 Rule 1 refers to an application made to a court in civil proceedings which is used to seek temporary relief, such as an injunction or a stay order. It is the most widely used form of temporary relief in India, and courts often grant applications under Order 39 Rule 1 when they are satisfied that a temporary order may be necessary in order to protect the interests of a party.
Generally, applications as provided under Order 39 Rule 1 must contain a ‘prayer’, which is the specific relief sought. The applicant must also provide evidence to show the court why they believe the court should grant the temporary order.
This could include documents, witness testimonies, and arguments based on established legal principles.
The court has the option to either grant or deny the application, or decide to impose conditions on the temporary order that it grants. If a court grants an application under Order 39 Rule 1, that order generally remains in force until the matters raised in the application are decided upon at a final hearing.
In which of the following proceedings Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable?
Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) applies to suits by or against the government or public officers suing or sued in their official capacity. Under this rule, the notice of such a suit should be addressed to the Collector of the district in which such public officer resides or carries out his official duty.
Further, it should be served on the Secretary of the concerned office or on any other officer of the department or office, if there is no Secretary. Additionally, if the defendant resides outside the jurisdiction of the court, then the court can order the notice to be affixed on the notice board of the collective office in the district where the defendant resides or works.
In any case, only after the proper service of such notice, can the proceedings in the case be moved cause listed for the hearing.
In short, Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to suits against the government or public officers in their official capacity. This rule requires the notice of such a suit to be served on the concerned department or office, either through the Collector of the district or any other officer, as the case may be.
However, if the defendant resides outside the court’s jurisdiction, then the court can order that the notice be affixed on a notice board of the collective office in the district where the defendant resides or works.
This serves as a necessity before the proceedings in the case can be proceeded with and put on cause list for hearing.
What if a judge dies after writing his judgement but before delivering it?
If a judge dies after writing his judgement but before delivering it, the judgement would typically be delivered posthumously. The judge’s clerks, or other relevant judicial officers, may need to certify that the judgement was written by the judge before it can be released.
If the judgement is not released at the time of the judge’s death, the parties would be notified via a court order by the relevant court. Depending on the jurisdiction, the judgement may need to be approved by a higher court prior to it being delivered.
In addition, the court may waive any necessary requirements and accept the judgement as a valid, binding decision. In some cases, a new judge may also be appointed to deliver the judgement, depending on jurisdictional law and the specific circumstances of the case.
When shall judgement of conviction become final?
A judgement of conviction typically becomes final when all legal appeals or petitions for post-conviction relief have been exhausted. Depending on the state or country in which the conviction took place, there may be certain time limits imposed on the filing of any potential appeals or petitions, so a judgement of conviction may become final more quickly if such deadlines are not met.
In the United States, defendants can often file a direct appeal to a higher court within a strict timeframe, and may be able to challenge the conviction through other legal avenues such as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
However, once all legal options have been exhausted, the judgement of conviction will typically become final.
What will be the consequences if any party willfully disobeys the order of injunction granted by court?
If any party willfully disobeys a court’s order of injunction, they may be in violation of court orders and subject to significant consequences, including contempt of court. In most cases, this means the party will be liable to pay damages, which may include court costs, attorney’s fees, and possibly other sanctions such as fines, jail time, and an inability to collect on any judgment obtained.
Additionally, a party that willfully defies a court order risks having their case dismissed altogether, which would negate any chance of receiving a favorable judgment and would likely preclude further legal action on the matter.
Therefore, it is important to follow all court orders and injunctions, even if a party disagrees with the orders. Ignoring court orders can be a very serious mistake with serious consequences.
Under what circumstances a court can order attachment of property before judgement?
Under certain circumstances, a court can order the attachment of property before judgement. This is typically done in order to ensure that the party has sufficient assets to cover any potential fines or settlement payments after judgement has been made.
In most circumstances, this is done in civil cases which involve monetary damages. Attachment before judgement is seen as a form of ‘security’ which holds a party to its obligations as outlined in a civil suit.
If a court orders a pre-judgement attachment, the party’s property may be seized and held for a period of time, during which a judgement may be reached. This may be done through the execution of a writ of attachment, or a legal document which orders the seizure of a party’s property.
This type of order is typically granted when a person is deemed to be a flight risk and the court wants to ensure they cannot avoid payment of fines or members by selling off assets or fleeing the jurisdiction before judgement has been reached.
In addition, attachment before judgement may be used to ensure that a person’s property is not used as collateral for additional loans or purchases which could lead to additional losses or charges after judgement is reached.
Can a judgment be quashed?
Yes, a judgment can be quashed. This means to have it overturned or set aside by a higher court. In order to do this, you would need to file an appeal with the court of appeals. In order to have a judgment quashed, you would have to prove that there are some issue with the court proceedings or the underlying facts of the case that make the judgement invalid or incorrect.
This could include issues like a lack of jurisdiction, a denial of certain rights, lack of evidence, or mistakes by the judge or jury. When filing an appeal, a detailed memorandum outlining the reasons why the judgment should be quashed must be presented to the appellate court in order for the court to consider the appeal.
When can a temporary injunction not be granted?
A temporary injunction cannot be granted when the plaintiff does not demonstrate sufficient probability of success on the merits of the case, or when the plaintiff fails to demonstrate irreparable harm if the relief is not granted.
The court must also balance the harm to both the plaintiff and defendant when considering whether to grant the injunction. In addition, a temporary injunction cannot be granted if the injunction would harm the public interest more than help it.
The court must also consider any applicable statutes or rules.
Can defendant seek injunction against plaintiff?
Yes, a defendant can seek an injunction against a plaintiff in certain circumstances. An injunction is a court order that either directs a party to take a specific action or refrain from taking a specific action.
For example, a defendant can ask the court to prevent the plaintiff from engaging in certain activities or from moving assets around by filing a motion for an injunction. For the court to issue an injunction, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff can create irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
The court will also consider whether an injunction is necessary to prevent the plaintiff from continuing to engage in an unlawful activity. In most instances, the defendant must provide a strong legal argument to assure the court that granting the injunction is necessary to protect the defendant’s legal rights.
What evidence do you need for an injunction?
When applying for an injunction, there is a variety of evidence that could be needed depending upon the nature of the case. Generally, the evidence needed for an injunction could include written evidence such as contracts, witnesses, financial documents, and statements from any relevant parties.
In addition, any relevant photographs, expert opinions, and any other tangible evidence that proves material facts in the given scenario could be beneficial when presenting a case for an injunction.
Evidence to prove the applicant’s legal rights is also usually necessary when applying for an injunction. In order for an injunction to be granted, a court must generally consider whether the applicant has a legal right to relief from the dispute, and what evidence can be provided to support this.
Finally, evidence that proves that the applicant has a substantial interest or has suffered an irreparable harm is commonly needed when presenting a case for an injunction. This evidence could include material directly related to the source of the dispute as well as any injury or damage that has effectively been caused by the other party.
The court will then compare this evidence to the potential benefit or harm that could result if said injunction was granted and make a decision accordingly.
On which grounds the injunction can be granted by the court?
An injunction is a court order that requires a person to do or to refrain from doing a certain activity. Including preventing harm to another person, property, or public interest; preventing the violation of a person’s rights; and preserving the status quo until a court makes a judgment.
In regards to harm, a court may grant an injunction if there is evidence that a person or company is causing or will likely cause harm to another person or group. This could include physical harm or harm to a person’s reputation or property.
Regarding rights, an injunction may be necessary to protect a person’s rights to an equitable solution in a dispute. For example, if one person or company is violating another’s contractual rights, an injunction may be used to temporarily stop their actions until a judgment is made.
Finally, a court may issue an injunction to preserve the status quo in a dispute. This is to ensure that the parties involved in a situation don’t take any action to alter the circumstances that are being considered in order to give the court time to make a decision.
In summary, a court can grant an injunction on many grounds, including to prevent harm, protect rights, and preserve the status quo.
Under what circumstances order of injunction is given?
An order of injunction is a court order requiring an individual or business to do or refrain from doing specific acts. The court may require that the individual or business take an action before an injunction can be granted.
Injunctions may be issued to protect the rights of an individual or organization, prevent future or current harm, or preserve the status quo.
In some circumstances, a court may grant an injunction without any request from an individual or business. This is known as “ex parte.” Ex parte injunctions may be used in instances where immediate action is needed to prevent interference with rights or interests.
For example, if a business is threatening to stop a competitor from using their trademark, a court may issue an injunction to stop them from doing so.
Injunctions may also be requested by an individual or business who is seeking relief from another individual or organization. Injunctions may be requested to protect property rights, stop someone from committing or continuing an illegal or wrongful act, or to prevent a breach of contract.
A common example of this kind of injunction is one that is requested in personal injury or defamation cases to stop an individual from publishing false and damaging statements.
Injunctions may also be ordered to prevent an individual or business from performing a criminal act, stop someone from interfering with a court order, or enforce a judgement or court order. For example, courts may grant an injunction to stop a party from disposing of assets, in order to ensure that a judgement can be enforced.
In order for an injunction to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate to the court that there is irreparable harm or a likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. This must be done by providing evidence and convincing the court of the need for the injunction.
The court must then decide whether the balance of hardships favors the applicant, and whether granting the injunction is in the public’s best interest.
What happens if someone gets an injunction against you?
If someone obtains an injunction against you, they have essentially obtained a court order that requires you to do or not do certain acts. The injunction can specify a wide variety of things, including prohibitions against making contact with a person, engaging in certain business practices, or disrupting a peaceable assembly.
If you do not abide by the court-ordered injunction, then you can be held in contempt of court which could result in further repercussions. Consequences could range from a fine to imprisonment. Additionally, there may be penalties included in the injunction that can be imposed if an individual is found to be in violation.
Injunctions can be particularly difficult to handle as they can come into play unexpectedly and without warning. It is important to be aware of any injunctions that may have been placed against you, either by a court or by another person, and to abide by the terms as closely as possible.
Failure to follow the terms of an injunction could result in potentially serious penalties.
What are the disadvantages of injunction?
Injunctions are court orders that are meant to either prevent or compel a person or entity to take a certain action. While they can be an effective way to protect or enforce rights, there are some disadvantages associated with injunctions.
First, injunctions are expensive, time-consuming processes. Depending on the nature and circumstances of the injunction, it can be a lengthy process to make your case to the court and convince the court to issue an injunction.
It can also be costly to hire a lawyer and go through the legal process.
Second, injunctions may be seen to be unfair by some. Depending on what the injunction is, it may place a larger burden on one side than another, which could be seen as injustice. Similarly, it can be frustrating for parties to have their actions constrained by court orders beyond their control.
Third, injunctions can be difficult to enforce. Even after an injunction is issued, a person may still be unwilling to comply. This can mean the parties need to go back to court to enforce the order, which can be another lengthy and costly process.
Fourth, injunctions can be ineffective if the harm being prevented by the injunction is already occurring and so damages are already being done.
Finally, injunctions can provide a false sense of security. After an injunction is issued, people may feel that their rights are protected, but an injunction must be closely monitored to make sure it is being followed.
If it is not being followed, another case would have to be taken to court and injunctions do not always guarantee compliance.
