Manohar Lal Chopra v Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal

Facts

Two former business partners disputed their partnership accounts. The appellant first filed a suit at Asansol (Bengal) to recover his capital share with interest, after which the respondent filed a counter-suit at Indore, relying on a dissolution-deed clause vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the Indore courts. The Indore court issued a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from proceeding with the earlier-filed Asansol suit. The appellant challenged that injunction.

Issues

• Whether a civil court has inherent power under Section 151 CPC to grant a temporary injunction in circumstances not covered by Order 39 CPC.
• If such inherent power exists, whether it could properly be exercised here to restrain a party from prosecuting a suit pending in another competent court.

Arguments

The appellant argued that Section 94(c) and Order 39 are the exhaustive provisions governing temporary injunctions, so inherent powers under Section 151 cannot be invoked where express provisions occupy the field. The respondent argued that the Code is not exhaustive, that inherent powers under Section 151 are complementary to the express provisions and may be used to do justice, and that the appellant had breached the contractual forum-selection clause.

Held

The majority held that civil courts have inherent power under Section 151 CPC to issue temporary injunctions in cases not falling within Order 39, since the Code is not exhaustive; such powers are complementary to, and in addition to, the express powers. However, inherent powers cannot be exercised when their exercise would conflict with what is expressly provided in the Code or against the intention of the Legislature. Applying these principles and following Cohen v Rothfield, the Court held that an injunction restraining a party from prosecuting a suit in another competent court should be granted with great caution and only where the other suit is vexatious and useless. As the Asansol suit was filed earlier and was not shown to be vexatious, and as restraining the appellant indirectly achieved what the Indore court could not do directly (the Asansol court alone could decide its own jurisdiction), the injunction was improper and was set aside.

Ratio decidendi

Section 151 CPC preserves the court's inherent power to grant temporary injunctions in situations not covered by Order 39, but this power cannot be exercised in conflict with express provisions of the Code or the intention of the Legislature. An injunction restraining a party from proceeding with a suit in another competent court must be used very sparingly and only where that suit is vexatious and useless.

Significance

A leading authority on the scope of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, repeatedly followed for the propositions that the Code is not exhaustive and that inherent powers are supplementary but subject to express provisions. It also remains the principal precedent on the limited circumstances in which a court may injunct a party from prosecuting proceedings in another competent court, and is routinely cited alongside Padam Sen v State of UP on inherent powers.

Related