Federal Government

1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.— Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise­

(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or

(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud his creditors.

the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.

2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continunace of breach.—

(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right.

(2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit.

(3) In case of disobedience, or of breach of any such terms, the Court granting an injunction may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in prison for a term not exceeding six months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.

(4) No attachment under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold, and out of the proceeds the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.

Punjab

1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.— Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise­

(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or

(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud his creditors.

the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.

2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continunace of breach.—

(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right.

(2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit.

(3) [Omitted.]

(4) No attachment under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold, and out of the proceeds the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.

Sindh

(Not available on Sindh Code)

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

(Not available on KP Code)

Balochistan

— Application to file in Court arbitration agreement — Scope — Where the legal right claimed is not sufficiently clear to enable the Court to form an opinion thereon, the relevant convenience or inconvenience in granting injunction (or refusal thereof) to the parties should be considered — The Court, while exercising jurisdiction under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 can only go so far in determination of the so-called prima facie case test as the decision on the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators — It is thus imperative that the Courts must not make findings of fact or construe the provisions of contract between the parties particularly when they have expressly agreed to refer such dispute to arbitration. [PLR 2024 Lahore 1 = PLD 2024 Lahore 1 = 2023 LHC 4474]

— Interim injunction — Scope — The Court as a matter of principle ought not to delve deep into controversy between the parties to make a forecast about the outcome of the case and that it would be sufficient for the Court to decide that the applicant has put forward a case that is arguable or at least not a frivolous one and after making this determination to move to discover whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction by striking a balance between the interests of the applicant and that of the beneficiary — In doing so, the Court should bear in mind the extent to which damages are likely to be an adequate remedy and the ability of the other party to pay the same. [PLR 2024 Lahore 1 = PLD 2024 Lahore 1 = 2023 LHC 4474]

— Interim injunction — Scope — The standards for grant (or refusal) of interim injunction as developed by the Courts involve sequentially an inquiry whether the plaintiff has demonstrated an arguable case and once that test has been met with the Court turns its attention towards the next two tests i.e. whether the harm will be irreparable in granting and denying the injunction and where the balance of inconvenience lies in the interim or which of the parties shall be at a disadvantage by the grant or denial of the injunction. Where the right asserted by the applicant is disputed or is in doubt, the balance of convenience becomes an important factor in grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. Where the decision depends upon the consideration of the preponderance of inconvenience, the onus is upon the applicant to demonstrate that his inconvenience would exceed that of the respondent. [PLR 2024 Lahore 1 = PLD 2024 Lahore 1 = 2023 LHC 4474]

— Interim injunction — Scope — The three tests applied for grant of interlocutory injunctions are well established in almost all the jurisdictions — These tests require an applicant to demonstrate that (a) there is a prima facie case by which it is meant that the applicant must be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Court that there is a serious question to be tried in the sense that the claim is not frivolous (b) it will suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the relief is denied to it or in other words granting an injunction could cause less harm to the defendant compared to the likely harm the applicant would suffer from the refusal of such injunction, and (c) the balance of inconvenience favours it — When deciding whether to grant an interim injunction, the court should focus on the legal nature of the right in question — This means considering the type of dispute and the specific legal principles involved before applying the three tests — While the guidelines are rooted in tradition and policy, they are not consistently applied across all cases — Different types of disputes, such as those involving property, public interest, or freedom of expression, may raise different concerns about irreparable harm compared to commercial disputes — Challenges in assessing damages, especially in cases with patents or trademarks, further complicate matters — The court must take all these factors into account, but it is challenging to specify a fixed set of considerations or assign specific weights to them, as each case is unique. [PLR 2024 Lahore 1 = PLD 2024 Lahore 1 = 2023 LHC 4474]

— Application to restrain the encashment of unconditional bank guarantee — Interim injunction — Scope — In seeking an interim injunction, certain stringent criteria must be met by the applicant — Mere allegations of breaches in contractual obligations or claims of fraud and unfair conduct in the plaint are insufficient grounds for the applicant to succeed. In commercial cases involving breach of contract, the court should exhibit robust skepticism towards assertions that damages are an inadequate remedy; a determination in favour of damages signifies a refusal to grant an injunction based on the balance of convenience — The applicant faces insurmountable barriers and must demonstrate that the respondent’s conduct is of significant consequence, causing irretrievable harm, surpassing the autonomy principle — Moreover, the applicant needs to establish that, upon successful trial, restitution or compensation from the respondent would be unattainable — Clear proof of fraud and notice of such fraud by the bank are indispensable pre-requisites — These stringent conditions emphasize that mere contract breaches with counter allegations do not warrant exceptions to the non-interference rule, particularly in commercial cases where allegations of breach alone are insufficient — Furthermore, the applicant must assert an inability to recover the amount from the beneficiary upon trial success. [PLR 2024 Lahore 1 = PLD 2024 Lahore 1 = 2023 LHC 4474]

— Application to restrain the encashment of unconditional bank guarantee — Interim injunction, refusal of — Scope — Petitioner seeks redress from High Court, challenging the decision of the District Judge who affirmed the Trial Court’s dismissal of its’ application to restrain the respondent from invoking the bank guarantee — The contractual arrangement between the petitioner and respondent involved the supply of items from the United States, with the petitioner obligated to furnish an on-demand performance guarantee — The bank guarantee, being unconditional and independent of the main contract, was supplied as per contractual requirements — Despite an extension in the supply period (by respondent) and amendments to the letter of credit, a dispute arose when respondent demanded late payment charges and called upon the bank guarantee after supply of items’ — The petitioner, contesting the claim, sought an interlocutory injunction from the Civil Court under the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was denied by both the Trial Court and the District Judge — The petitioner now petitions to High Court, challenging the adverse rulings and seeking relief — Validity — There’s a disagreement between the parties about whether respondent rightfully asked for late payment charges — The courts below rightly decided not to give an opinion on this dispute as it should be resolved by arbitrators — The guarantee in question is unconditional, meaning the bank had to meet respondent’s demand — The petitioner couldn’t show a strong reason to stop the guarantee payment temporarily, and there’s no proof of fraud by respondent — The claim that the petitioner didn’t break any terms of the contract needs arbitration for confirmation — There’s no evidence of financial trouble, and doubts about respondent’s ability to pay, if petitioner’s claim is ultimately accepted — Writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. [PLR 2024 Lahore 1 = PLD 2024 Lahore 1 = 2023 LHC 4474]