Supervisory jurisdiction over ex parte injunctions can intervene when ordinary remedies are ineffective and a public issue is at risk.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction may be invoked against an ex parte temporary injunction where ordinary remedies under appeal or Order 39 Rule 4 are not practically effective before the restrained event, and the order would otherwise render the suit infructuous. In the described public issue dispute, the court treated the timing of the restraint and the imminent issue date as making supervisory interference necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice. On merits, approval by SEBI, compliance with suggested amendments, and approval of the printed form and advertisement showed no prima facie case for stopping the issue, while the balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoured the petitioner. The restraint was therefore vacated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable against an ex parte order of temporary injunction when appeal and remedy under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code were available; (ii) Whether the ex parte restraint against the proposed public issue was liable to be set aside for want of a prima facie case and on the balance of convenience.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable against an ex parte order of temporary injunction when appeal and remedy under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code were available.

Analysis: Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is exercised where the subordinate court acts without jurisdiction, fails to exercise jurisdiction, or acts illegally or improperly causing grave miscarriage of justice. The restraint order had been passed on the last working day before the winter vacation and the suit was posted beyond the date fixed for commencement of the public issue. In those circumstances, the ordinary remedies were not practically effective before the issue date, and the order, if allowed to stand, would have rendered the suit infructuous.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable in the peculiar facts of the case and interference under Article 227 was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte restraint against the proposed public issue was liable to be set aside for want of a prima facie case and on the balance of convenience.

Analysis: The record showed that the scheme had been approved by SEBI, the suggested amendments had been carried out, and the printed form and advertisement had been approved. The objections regarding absence of approval, disclaimer format, and inspection of documents did not establish a sufficient basis to stop the issue. The Court found no prima facie case for injunction and held that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the respondents, while continuation of the restraint would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The ex parte injunction could not be sustained and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the supervisory jurisdiction was invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice, and the restraint order preventing the public issue was vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an ex parte injunction would effectively defeat the very subject matter of the suit before the restrained party can avail an ordinary remedy, and the order is unsupported by a prima facie basis, supervisory interference is justified to prevent miscarriage of justice.

---