Specific Relief Act, 1877 — section 56

56. Injunction when refused. An injunction cannot be granted

(a)to stay a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings;

(b)to stay proceedings in a Court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought;

(c)to restraint persons from applying to any legislative body;

(d)to interfere with the public duties of any department of 1[the 2[Federal Government], 3* * * or any Provincial Government], or with the sovereign acts of a Foreign Government;

(e)to stay proceedings in any criminal matter;

(f)to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced;

(g)to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance; 1 Subs. by A. O.,1937 for “the G. of I. or the L.G.”. (w.e.f.1st April, 1937). 2 Subs. by F. A. O., 1975, Art. 2, for “Central Government” (w.e.f. 28th July, 1975). 3 The words “the Crown Representative” omitted by A. O., 1949, Sch., (w.e.f. 28th March, 1949).

(h)to prevent a continuing breach in which the applicant has acquiesced;

(i)when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust;

(j)when the conduct of the applicant or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the Court;

(k)where the applicant has no personal interest in the matter. Illustrations

(a)A seeks an injunction to restrain his partner, B, from receiving the partnership-debts and effects. It appears that A had improperly possessed himself of the books of the firm and refused B access to them. The Court will refuse the injunction.

(b)A manufactures and sells crucibles, designating them as “patent plum-bago crucibles,” though, in fact, they have never been patented. B pirates the designation. A cannot obtain an injunction to restrain the piracy.

(c)A sells an article called “Mexican Balm,” stating that it is compounded of divers rare essences, and has sovereign medicinal qualities. B commences to sell a similar article to which he gives a name and description such as to lead people into the belief that they are buying A’s Mexican Balm. A sues B for an injunction to restrain the sale. B shows that A’s Mexican Balm consists of nothing but scented hog’s lard. A’s use of his description is not an honest one and he cannot obtain an injunction.