Interim injunction over movable goods denied where no strong prima facie case or irreparable injury was shown.

An ex parte interim injunction restraining release of machinery from customs bond was held unsustainable because the claimant had not shown a maintainable claim for specific performance at the time of the order, and later amendment did not cure the absence of a strong prima facie case or irreparable injury. The dispute concerned movable commercial goods available in the market, with no special character shown to make monetary compensation inadequate. The court noted that an undertaking to supply similar machines if specific performance were ultimately granted further undermined the need for urgent protection. The injunction was vacated, the appeal succeeded, and the temporary injunction application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte interim injunction restraining release of the machinery from customs bond was sustainable, and whether the respondent had made out a prima facie case and irreparable injury for interim protection in the suit as framed and later amended.

Analysis: The suit, when the ex parte order was granted, was only for mandatory and prohibitory injunction and was not in the form of a maintainable claim for specific performance. Section 58 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 permits specific performance in suits for breach of contract to deliver specific or ascertained goods, subject to Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. After amendment, the relief was recast as specific performance, but the goods in question were movable articles of commerce available in the market and not shown to be of such special character that monetary compensation would be inadequate. On those facts, the respondent did not establish a strong prima facie case for interim relief, and the absence of irreparable loss was fatal to the injunction. The appellant's statement that similar machines would be supplied if specific performance were ultimately decreed further negatived any case for urgent interim protection.

Conclusion: The ex parte injunction was unsustainable and had to be vacated; the respondent was not entitled to interim relief.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned injunction order was set aside, and the respondent's application for temporary injunction was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim injunction in a commercial dispute over movable goods will not be granted where the claimant fails to show both a strong prima facie entitlement and irreparable injury, especially when adequate compensation can afford relief and the subject matter is obtainable in the market.

---