The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. versus Pothan Joseph
How later courts have used it
- Appellate or supervisory courts will not interfere with discretionary orders unless the discretion was perverse, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.1,2,3,4,5
- An appellate court exceeds its jurisdiction if it reverses a discretionary order without recording perversity.5
- Refusal of interim injunction was upheld where the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss.4,6,7,8
- An arbitration clause covering interpretation of the agreement's contents did not extend to a challenge alleging a fraudulent scheme.9
- The burden of proving joint family property and a prima facie case lies on the party seeking an injunction.6,7
- A direction that effectively grants final relief may constitute an appealable judgement.10
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here largely concern appellate and supervisory review of discretionary orders, particularly interim injunctions, and repeatedly draw on the principle that an appellate or supervisory court will not interfere with a lower court's discretion merely because it would have decided differently. Interference is warranted only where the discretion was exercised perversely, arbitrarily, capriciously, or in ignorance of settled principles. Several courts in these orders dismissed appeals or petitions because the lower court's order did not meet that high threshold.1,2,3,4,5,11,12,13,6,7,8
A recurring question is what constitutes a reversible error in a discretionary order. An appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing a trial court's discretionary order without recording that it suffered from perversity. An order declaring a sale in violation of an injunction was held perverse and an error of jurisdiction where the land sold was under a different Patta number outside the suit's scope. Conversely, refusal of interim relief was upheld where the lower court found no prima facie case or balance of convenience, where revenue records were conflicting, where third-party rights and possession were established, and where the issue required interpretation and the court below acted regularly. The burden to prove a prima facie case and irreparable loss lies on the party seeking the injunction, and mere existence of a Hindu joint family does not create a presumption of joint family property.5,14,4,8,12,6,13,7
The authority's principle on appellate restraint was also applied outside the injunction context. A revision by a non-party was dismissed because the ex-parte interim order was vacated for concealment and non-partnership, with the High Court declining to interfere absent arbitrariness or perversity. In a specific performance appeal, refusal of relief was upheld where equities did not justify it. In an arbitration appeal, the appellate court could not substitute its discretion absent perversity or unlawfulness. In a licence correction dispute, invocation of a clause to correct terms departing from tender conditions was upheld.11,15,3,16
Some judgements also address the scope of the arbitration clause, holding that it covered only disputes concerning interpretation of the agreement's contents, and that challenges alleging a fraudulent scheme fell outside that scope, though fraud allegations did not by themselves exclude arbitration. Other orders dealt with procedural questions: an amendment application was allowed where limitation issues were kept open for final hearing, and an appeal was dismissed as time-barred where good cause for delay was not found. One judgement noted that a direction effectively granting final relief constituted an appealable judgement.9,17,18,10
Citing judgements
Karnataka High Court writ appeal allowed; ITAT ex parte dismissal upheld; S.249(4)(a) maintainability non-payment of tax on returned income; Section 246(a); Section 143(3) read with Section 153-A; AY 2006-07; AY 2007-08; ITA Nos.1463 & 1464/Bang/2010; restoration MP Nos.35 & 36 dated 30.11.2012;
AllowedDistinguishedOpenThe High Court allowed two appeals by setting aside a Civil Judge's order that made a temporary injunction absolute and restrained appellants based on a violation that did not exist. The trial court failed to distinguish land sold under a separate Patta number outside the suit premises, constituting perversity.
DisposedDistinguishedOpenA brand royalty dispute involved allegations that the agreement was a device to siphon company funds. The court dismissed the request to appoint an arbitrator because the disputes fell outside a clause limited to interpretation of the agreement’s contents, not because fraud made them inherently non-arbitrable.
DistinguishedOpenRamakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others, Civil Appeal No. 13001 of 2024, Supreme Court of India, decided 22 November 2024 (J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.). Family dispute over jointly owned Vadodara property: defendant no. 1 sold it via a 1995 power of attorney to his son (defendant no.
AllowedRelied onOpenJagpati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Secrett. Lko. and 2 Others
Outcome: DismissedAppliedThe petitioner sought to quash a order vacating an ex-parte interim stay granted to him. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not exercise discretion arbitrarily and that the petitioner, being a non-party to the original consolidation proceedings, could not…
DismissedAppliedOpenNawab Ali Siddiqui Vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Member Judical, Lucknow and 3 Others
Outcome: DismissedRelied onPetitioner challenged the Board of Revenue's refusal to grant interim protection, alleging a sale deed dispute. The court held the impugned order justifiable, applied principles regarding non-interference with discretionary decisions, and dismissed the petition, suggesting the petitioner file a regular suit.
DismissedRelied onOpen
Show 6 more
The petitioner challenged the trial court's refusal to grant an ex parte injunction, arguing it issued notice without a decision. The single judge held the order immune from interference under Article 227 as it was an interlocutory step on a property interpretation issue, demanding no correction.
Civil Miscellaneous (Main)Relied onOpenIn a first appeal against the dismissal of a suit for specific performance, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision. The buyer, a doctor, sought specific performance of sale agreements executed with his elderly patient who needed funds for treatment.
DismissedRelied onOpenThe High Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against an interim order restraining the appellant from demanding unpaid premiums and terminating the Concession Agreement.
Relied onOpenBus-stall licences contained permissions exceeding the original tender conditions. The court dismissed the appeal against refusal of interim suspension of corrective proceedings, granted conditional ten-day protection against coercive action, and directed investigation and disciplinary action against responsible…
DismissedRelied onOpenRegistration of land listed as prohibited property could not be directed through interim relief effectively allowing the writ petition without an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit. The court set aside the registration direction and restored the application.
DismissedRelied onOpenNirmalsinh Shantubhai Jadeja Legal Heir Fo Jivubhai Khodubhai Jadeja Vs Popatbhai Narshibhai Shingala
Outcome: Any other modeRelied onThe High Court dismissed an appeal from an order rejecting a plea for interim injunction in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The Court found the appellant failed to make out a prima facie case and affirmed the lower court's exercise of discretion under Order XLIII of CPC.
Any other modeRelied onOpen
In this trademark passing-off appeal dismissed for limitation, the High Court held that late filing after trial cannot be condoned merely due to a subsequent registration. The court also found no merit in challenging the trial court's findings on prior use and deceptive similarity.
ExplainedOpenCompany Appeal(at) 237/ND/2026 of Orbit Electricals Private Limited vs Deepak Kishan Chhabria & Ors.
Company AppealOutcome: DisposedReferredThe NCLAT dismissed appeal against NCLT's order allowing Respondent No.1 to amend the Company Petition. The Tribunal held that allowing amendments involving subsequent events and consequential reliefs was valid as the issue of limitation remained open for final adjudication.
Company AppealDisposedReferredOpenInterim injunction; application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC dismissed by trial Court, reversed in Order 43 CPC appeal; appellate restraint and perversity test (Wander v. Antox principles via Ramakant Ambalal Choksi, 2024 INSC 913); withdrawal of suit without permission to file afresh fatal to equitable relief;
AllowedReferredOpenSingle Judge dismissed two writ petitions challenging interlocutory orders refusing injunctions in a partition suit. The High Court held that the lower courts did not exercise discretion perversely and interfered with their findings that plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case or irreparable loss.
DismissedExplainedOpenGangappa Since Dead by Lrs Sri.Shivashankarappag Since Dead by His Lrs Smt. Vijayalakshmi Vs Smt. Venkatamma
Outcome: DismissedReferredTwo writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of orders refusing interim injunction in partition suits. The High Court refused to interfere, holding the lower courts did not exercise discretion perversely and plaintiffs failed to prove prima facie case.
DismissedReferredOpenInterim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC refused for want of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss; suit property within lal dora of village Biana; possession and identity of suit property not established; no plot number/ID in site plan or plaint;
DismissedReferredOpen
Show 4 more
passing off; interim injunction; unclean hands; clean hands doctrine; fabricated invoices; manipulated invoices; false user claim before Trade Marks Registry; false FSSAI assertion; Central FSSAI licence rejection withheld; goodwill and reputation; prior user; sporadic use; casual or intermittent use insufficient;
ReferredOpenTrademark interim-injunction appeal (FAO(OS)(COMM)); infringement and passing off in steel/TMT bars; licence-versus-assignment under Clauses 22-26 of the 2002 Agreement; novation by the 2021 Agreement; revocation of consent by termination notice dated 19.09.2024; abandonment of TM application 1161758;
ReferredOpenTemporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC; appellate restraint in interlocutory matters; arbitrary, capricious or perverse discretion test; Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd.; prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury; triable issues of title, possession and identity;
DismissedReferredOpenRatification by Board of Governors (item 47.5.7, meeting 08.04.2026) of termination notice issued by allegedly incompetent Registrar, retrospective validation from 01.05.2024; Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act interim measures refused; appeal against discretionary order of Single Judge is appeal on principle;
DisposedReferredOpen