Perpetual injunction requires actual legal injury; a stock exchange may inquire into misconduct complaints within its disciplinary power.

A perpetual injunction under the Specific Relief Act is an equitable remedy that requires an enforceable legal obligation and an actual or threatened invasion of a legal right; a mere apprehension that an inquiry may end adversely is insufficient. The Stock Exchange's demand that the plaintiffs answer a complaint did not itself create a legal wrong or cause of action. The Exchange rules also imposed a disciplinary duty on its directors to maintain probity and supervise members, so the complaint was not shown to fall outside that power. The fact that the alleged misconduct might also amount to an offence did not prevent the Board from inquiring before any criminal conviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a perpetual injunction restraining the Stock Exchange from inquiring into the complaint and whether the Board of Directors lacked authority to proceed under the relevant rules.

Analysis: A perpetual injunction under the Specific Relief Act is an equitable remedy available only on the hearing and on the merits of the suit, and it must be founded on an enforceable legal obligation and an actual or threatened invasion of a legal right. Mere apprehension that an inquiry may result adversely is not enough. The Board's demand that the plaintiffs answer a complaint against them did not, by itself, create any legal wrong or cause of action. The rules governing the Exchange imposed a duty on its directors to maintain probity and supervise members, and the complaint was not shown to be beyond the scope of that disciplinary power. The circumstance that the complaint alleged misconduct which might amount to an offence did not mean that the Board was powerless to inquire until a criminal court first convicted the member.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not entitled to the injunction, and the Exchange's inquiry could not be restrained.

---