Bajrang Builders (Pty) Ltd v Harini & Company (Pty) Ltd (MA 78/2017 (arising in CS11/2016)) [2017] SCSC 883 (18 June 2017)

Bajrang Builders (Pty) Ltd v Harini & Company (Pty) Ltd (MA 78/2017 (arising in CS11/2016)) [2017] SCSC 883 (18 June 2017)

The applicant established valid grounds for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent from further construction and business activities on the disputed premises, as the balance of inconvenience, hardship, and loss to the applicant outweighed any prejudice to the respondent. The court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to partially grant the injunction, preserving the status quo pending the final determination of the main suit.

Citation
[2017] SCSC 883
Parties
Applicant: Bajrangi Builders (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Harini & Company (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
18 June 2017
Case Number
MA 78/2017 (arising in CS11/2016)
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (interlocutory Injunction) / Ruling on Motion
Outcome
Application for interim injunction partially granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Breach of Contract, Preservation of Status Quo, Equitable Relief
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Equity Interim Injunction Breach of Contract Preservation of Status Quo Equitable Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Bajrangi Builders (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Harini & Company (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (interlocutory Injunction) / Ruling on Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from further construction and business activities on the disputed premises pending the determination of the main suit.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has satisfied the legal requirements for the grant of an interim injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established valid grounds for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent from further construction and business activities on the disputed premises, as the balance of inconvenience, hardship, and loss to the applicant outweighed any prejudice to the respondent. The court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to partially grant the injunction, preserving the status quo pending the final determination of the main suit.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction partially granted

Orders

  • Respondent to cease and desist from all further construction at the premises pending final adjudication of the main suit.
  • Respondent to immediately cease the business of plastic storage and manufacture in the portion allocated to the applicant pending final adjudication of the main suit.