3M India Limited v. Sri Manjappa Chatrad
Case brief
What is this about?
Ex parte temporary injunction; absence/sufficiency of reasons; alternative efficacious remedy; Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC regularisation application; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC; writ jurisdiction refusal; suspension of interim order pending Order XXXIX Rule 4 decision; two-week timeline direction; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J.; 3M India Ltd. and 3M Innovative Properties Company v. Manjappa Chatrad; O.S.No.2886/2026; WP No. 14474 of 2026; decision dated 18 June 2026. Relevant where a party aggrieved by an ex parte injunction argues non-reasoning: this Court held that where some reasons exist, the remedy is before the Trial Court under Order XXXIX Rule 4, not the writ court.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition disposed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC before the Trial Court; Trial Court directed to dispose of such application expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, after receiving objections from the respondent; operation of the impugned order to remain suspended till decision on the application.