https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465890 Temporary injunction in a contract-of-service dispute requires proof of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury; where the alleged loss can be adequately compensated by damages, injunctive relief must be refused. The District Judge found that even assuming a prima facie case, the balance of convenience was against the respondent and monetary compensation would be sufficient, so injunction was declined. The SC held that the High Court erred in interfering without properly applying these requirements and in restoring the injunction despite the absence of irreparable injury. The respondent was therefore not entitled to temporary injunction. en-us Fri, 16 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jan 2026 10:48:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465890 Temporary injunction in a contract-of-service dispute requires proof of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury; where the alleged loss can be adequately compensated by damages, injunctive relief must be refused. The District Judge found that even assuming a prima facie case, the balance of convenience was against the respondent and monetary compensation would be sufficient, so injunction was declined. The SC held that the High Court erred in interfering without properly applying these requirements and in restoring the injunction despite the absence of irreparable injury. The respondent was therefore not entitled to temporary injunction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465890