TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (7) TMI 379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Society in the corridors of the law courts. Fissures appeared in the year 1984 when Mr. Samuel was allegedly removed from the Chairmanship of the Managing Committee. Admittedly, despite this so-called removal, Mr. Samuel continued running and managing the school as its Chairman till February, 1988 when death removed him from the scene. His claim, it appears, was that the Society had elected a new Governing body sanctioning his continuance and that the so-called Governing body which took action against him was acting without any sanction of law, it having become defunct on account of its supersession by another duly elected body. The battle-lines were thus clearly drawn. The first salvo was fired in the form of Suit No. 101 Of 1984 instituted by the present appellants seeking to restrain Mr. Samuel from interfering with the functioning of the society and an induction with regard to the premises. That suit is still pending but no ad-interim injunction has been granted so far. This was followed by Suit No. 552 of 1984 against the Director of Education and C.B.S.E. seeking non-affiliation of the school being run by Mr. Samuel at Paschim Vihar. However, it appears that despite such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be the duly and legally constituted body. (3) Time now to come to Suit No. 2243 of 1992. Significantly in he plaint no reference was made to the pendency of suit Nos. 1010 of 1984, 1048 of 1984, 552 of 1984 and suit No. 1346 of 1987.A reference was made to some efforts at reconciliation made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.L. Chaudhary of this court. There was no mention as to whether that exercise was made in some suit and was it an endeavor at personal level. No reference was made that in Suit No. 1010 of 1984 an ad interim injunction with regard to the school at Paschim Vihar was sought but no relief had been granted. In fact no details of the pending cases was given. As already noticed, it was no where claimed specifically that the appellants who were plaintiffs in the suit were in actual physical possession of the premises or were running or managing the school. The fact that since 1984 only Mr. samuel and other respondents had been in actual physical possession of the premises was suppressed. The court was also not informed that since 1984 the respondents had been running and managing the school. It was also kept back from the court that there had been two parallel managin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondents could be served, the present appellants moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking police aid for implementation of the order. The court ordered for its notice to the other side but the appellants avoided getting the respondents served by not filing the process fee and on August 31, 1992 obtained the following ex parte order: "Present : Mr. P. L . Sabastian, counsel for the plaintiff. I.A No. 10741/92 This application has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Notice to the other side for 16th October, 1992. Meanwhile Station I house Officer of Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, is directed to comply with the order of the court dated 8th July, 1992 and file a compliance report within two weeks from today. dusty. sd/- Dalveer Bhandari,J." August 31,1992. The game was thus accomplished. The respondents who were all along in possession since 1984 were ousted physically with the assistance of the police .It was only when the respondents appeared before the court and presented their side of the story that the learned judge did away with the order passed earlier and instead appoi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order of the learned Additional District Judge can be faulted. (6) Woodroffe has rightly observed in his "Law Relating to Injunctions" (12th Edn. page 101) that the "power which the court possesses of granting injunctions whether interlocutory or perpetual (however salutary) should be very cautiously exercised and only upon clear and satisfactory grounds, otherwise it may work the greatest injury". The very fact that the ex parte injunction sought and granted to the appellants by this court was later on not confirmed by the same learned single Judge goes to show that the appellants were, if I may say so, not found to have made out a case for such an order. The arrangement made with regard to the appointment of an outsider as the Principal was merely an interim measure but surely that arrangement was also to the disadvantage of the respondents since it too, like the earlier order, ousted them from running and managing the school, something which they had been doing since the year 1984. In any case, what the learned Additional District Judge has done is that he has while dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, restored the status quo ante which had first been dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ad-interim injunction order, but then the mere circumstance that the appellants have a prima facie case does not necessarily mean that the order of temporary injunction must follow. The court has also to consider the question of irreparable or serious injury and the balance of convenience. With the first condition as sine qua non, the petitioner must satisfy at least two conditions conjunctively. Surely, and I say it on authority, a mere proof of one of the three conditions would not take the appellants out of woods. And, what about the remaining two?. The respondents being in long undisturbed possession and having run and managed the school since 1984 and the appellants being clearly out of possession, can it be said that balance of convenience lies in favor of the appellants? Surely not. An interim injunction being essentially an equitable and a discretionary remedy, I am firmly of the belief that court will also have to be satisfied that the comparative mischief or inconvenience which may likely arise from withholding an injunction will be greater than that which may arise from granting it. And, the appellants fail to meet this ....