Interlocutory mandatory injunction cannot impose new obligations from third-party settlement; moulding of relief remains a final-stage principle.
An interlocutory mandatory injunction cannot be granted to impose a new obligation on a party on the basis of a settlement or consent terms to which that party was not a participant; such relief is confined to exceptional cases restoring the last uncontested status or status quo ante. The principle of moulding of relief is ordinarily reserved for final adjudication and cannot be used at the interim stage to enlarge an ad-interim arrangement into a fresh mandatory entitlement, such as delivery of additional flats and parking spaces. Interim mandatory relief requires a clear prima facie right and necessity to prevent irreparable injury.
Issues: (i) Whether a mandatory interlocutory injunction could be granted against the appellant on the basis of a settlement and consent terms executed only between the other parties. (ii) Whether the principle of moulding of relief could be invoked at the interlocutory stage to compel delivery of additional flats and parking spaces.
Issue (i): Whether a mandatory interlocutory injunction could be granted against the appellant on the basis of a settlement and consent terms executed only between the other parties.
Analysis: The operative arrangement relied upon by the High Court was inter se between the plaintiff and the co-defendant. The appellant was bound only by its own agreement and not by a separate settlement to which it was not a party. An interlocutory mandatory injunction of this nature can issue only in exceptional cases to restore the last non-contested status or status quo ante, and not to impose a new liability on a non-consenting party. The direction to hand over additional flats and parking spaces therefore went beyond the permissible scope of interim relief.
Conclusion: The interlocutory mandatory injunction against the appellant was not sustainable and was set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the principle of moulding of relief could be invoked at the interlocutory stage to compel delivery of additional flats and parking spaces.
Analysis: Moulding of relief is a principle ordinarily applied while finally adjudicating the dispute, not for creating a fresh interim entitlement. The grant of a mandatory order at the interim stage required a clear case, strong prima facie right, and necessity to prevent irreparable injury, none of which justified superimposing the co-defendant's obligations upon the appellant. The earlier ad-interim arrangement could have been continued, but the High Court could not enlarge it into a final-type mandatory direction at the interlocutory stage.
Conclusion: The principle of moulding of relief was wrongly applied at the interlocutory stage.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned interlocutory mandatory order was set aside, and the earlier ad-interim arrangement was restored to operate until further orders in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: An interlocutory mandatory injunction cannot be used to impose a new obligation on a party arising from a settlement to which it is not a party, and moulding of relief is ordinarily reserved for final adjudication, not for enlarging interim relief.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
