Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the State established a prima facie case for ad-interim mandatory injunction by showing available borrowing space and whether the three-fold test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury was satisfied.
Analysis: The suit raised substantial constitutional questions and those questions were referred to a five-judge Bench. For interim relief, the relief sought was mandatory in nature, so a stricter application of the triple test was required. On the material then available, the State did not establish unutilised borrowing space. The Court accepted, prima facie, that over-borrowing in earlier years could be adjusted against subsequent years, and that once off-budget borrowing and past over-utilisation were accounted for, the State had no demonstrated fiscal headroom for the claimed further borrowing. The pleaded financial hardship was treated as monetary in character and not, at that stage, as irreparable injury. The balance of convenience also lay against granting the injunction because any large-scale disruption from interim relief would be difficult to reverse if the suit ultimately failed.
Conclusion: The State was not entitled to the ad-interim mandatory injunction sought.