TUSHAR HIMATLAL JANI versus JASBIR SINGH VIJAN & ORS.

TUSHAR HIMATLAL JANI versus JASBIR SINGH VIJAN & ORS.

The High Court erred in restoring the interim injunction because Respondent No.1 failed to establish a prima facie case as the tenancy claim was sub judice before the Small Causes Court; the balance of convenience favored the Appellant given the small disputed area (550 sq ft of 22,000 sq ft) and existing redevelopment agreements, and the Appellant would suffer irreparable loss; therefore the appeal is allowed, the High Court order set aside, subject to reserving one 550 sq ft unit as security for the pending suit's outcome.

Parties
Appellant: Tushar Himatlal Jani; Respondent No.1: Jasbir Singh Vijan; Respondent No.2: M/s Silver Chem (India)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Dated 30.07.2024 Restoring Interim Injunction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order dated 30.07.2024 set aside.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Tenancy Dispute, Balance of Convenience, Irreparable Harm, Family Settlement Agreement, Leave and License Agreement, Impleadment
Civil Procedure Property Law Landlord and Tenant Equity Injunctions Interim Injunction Tenancy Dispute Balance of Convenience Irreparable Harm +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tushar Himatlal Jani

Appellant

Jasbir Singh Vijan

Respondent No.1

M/s Silver Chem (India)

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Dated 30.07.2024 Restoring Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in restoring an interim injunction in favour of Respondent No.1 during the pendency of the suit
  2. 2 Whether Respondent No.1 had established a prima facie case of tenancy rights over the disputed 550 sq ft
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience and irreparable harm justified continuing the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in restoring the interim injunction because Respondent No.1 failed to establish a prima facie case as the tenancy claim was sub judice before the Small Causes Court; the balance of convenience favored the Appellant given the small disputed area (550 sq ft of 22,000 sq ft) and existing redevelopment agreements, and the Appellant would suffer irreparable loss; therefore the appeal is allowed, the High Court order set aside, subject to reserving one 550 sq ft unit as security for the pending suit's outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order dated 30.07.2024 set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned order of the High Court dated 30.07.2024 set aside.
  • Appellant directed to keep one unit measuring about 550 square feet reserved in the developed property as security to protect the alleged rights of Respondent No.1 if the Small Causes Court decides the suit in his favour.