n a significant ruling delivered today, the Bombay High Court Full Bench has clarified that orders granting or refusing temporary injunctions are discretionary in nature and do not constitute a prima facie adjudication on the subject matter or merits of the case. This decision resolves conflicting views expressed in previous division bench judgments.​

The Full Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice M.S. Karnik, and Justice Shyam C. Chandak, addressed the inconsistencies between the decisions in Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. vs. Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (2005) and Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. vs. Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad (2012), as well as Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. vs. Reliance … . (2014). While the Colgate case emphasized that an order for temporary injunction is a discretionary one, the other two cases suggested it amounts to a prima facie adjudication … merits.

The Full Bench reaffirmed the principles laid down in Colgate, stating that the grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is an exercise of discretion by the … . It emphasized that such decisions are based on the trinity test—prima facie case, balance of … , and irreparable injury—and do not involve a detailed examination of the merits of the case. Therefore, an order for temporary injunction does not bar the trial court from considering the matter afresh during the final hearing.​

This clarification ensures consistency in the application of law regarding temporary injunctions and reinforces the discretionary nature of such orders, aligning with established legal principles.

Sources