Bombay High Court Quashed Order of Injunction due to Prejudice Caused by Delayed Judgment Pronouncement

Case Note & Summary

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Delay in Pronouncement of Judgment – Principles of Prompt Delivery of Justice – Prejudice to Appellant’s Rights – Quashing of Ad-Interim Injunction Order

Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Justice – Delay in Pronouncement of Judgment

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13(1-A) – Appeals from Orders – Section 16 – Amendments to Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for Commercial Disputes – Schedule Clause 11 – Pronouncement of Judgment within Ninety Days

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XX – Requirement of Prompt Pronouncement of Judgment – Non-Compliance and Legal Consequences

The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the delay of over a year caused prejudice to the appellants and quashed the impugned order.

Subjects: Commercial Dispute, Ad-Interim Injunction, Delay in Pronouncement, Prejudice, Quashing of Order, Commercial Appellate Division

Nature of Litigation: Appeal against an order passed by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court making ad-interim injunction absolute in a commercial suit concerning the alleged pledge of shares.

Relief Sought: Appellants sought quashing of the injunction order due to delayed pronouncement of judgment and failure to consider their submissions.

Reason for Filing the Case: Appellants contended that the long delay of over a year in delivering the judgment caused prejudice and deprived them of their right to timely legal remedies.

Prior Decisions: The Single Judge made the ad-interim order of 26th October 2021 absolute on 5th June 2023, leading to the filing of the present appeals.

Issues:

(a) Whether the delay of more than a year in pronouncing the order caused prejudice to the appellants and rendered the order liable to be set aside? (b) Whether the essential factors for granting an injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury—were adequately considered by the Single Judge?

Submissions/Arguments:

(a) Appellants: Argued that the long delay caused prejudice by restraining their rights without adequate justification. Cited the Supreme Court judgments on the importance of timely pronouncement of orders. (b) Respondents: Contended that delay alone does not vitiate an otherwise valid order and no substantial prejudice was caused.

Ratio:

Judicial discipline mandates prompt delivery of judgments, and undue delay without valid justification, especially when it results in prejudice, renders the order unsustainable in law. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, reinforces this by mandating the pronouncement of judgments within 90 days of conclusion of arguments.