HIGH COURT OF DELHI
( FAO(OS)228/2007 and CM Nos.8934-35/2007)
BABU RAM DHARAM PRAKASH .. .. ..Appellant
IZUK CHEMICAL WORKS .. .. ..Respondent
4. As has been mentioned above, the Appeal is against an interlocutory Order granting the Prayers contained in an Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The approach which must be adhered to by the Appellate Court in such matters is perspicuously enunciated in the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel, AIR 2006 SC 3304, paragraphs 128 and 129 of which are topical:- 128. The grant of an interlocutory injunction is in exercise of discretionary power and hence, the appellate courts will usually not interfere with it. However, appellate courts will substitute their discretion if they find that discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or where the court has ignored settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. This principle has been stated by this court time and time again. (See for example Wander Ltd. V. Antox India P. Ltd., (1990) Supp SCC 727, Lakshmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65 and Seema Arshad Zaheer v. MC of Greater Mumbai, (2006) 5 SCALE 263). 129. The appellate court may not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion.