Balance Of Convenience Principle
1. What is the Balance of Convenience Principle?
The Balance of Convenience is a principle used primarily in granting interlocutory or temporary injunctions. It helps courts determine whether to grant an injunction before the final disposal of a case.
It requires the court to weigh the relative inconvenience or harm that each party would suffer if the injunction is either granted or refused. In simple terms:
The court asks: "Which party will suffer more if we do or don’t grant the temporary relief?"
It is one of the key tests along with:
Prima facie case: Whether the claimant has a reasonable chance of success at trial.
Irreparable injury: Whether refusal or grant of injunction would cause harm that cannot be compensated by money.
Balance of convenience: Which side suffers greater hardship if the injunction is granted or refused.
This principle is widely used in civil cases, especially property disputes, commercial disputes, and trademark cases.
2. Detailed Case Laws Illustrating Balance of Convenience
Case 1: M/s. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1958)
Facts:
The petitioner sought an injunction to prevent the government from taking possession of certain property.
Held:
The court emphasized that before granting an injunction, it must be ensured that refusing it would cause greater inconvenience than granting it.
Balance of convenience can outweigh other considerations if denial of the injunction will cause irreparable loss.
Significance:
This case underlined that even against government action, the court weighs convenience and harm carefully.
Case 2: American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1975) [UK Case, widely cited in India]
Facts:
Plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from selling a product alleged to infringe a patent.
Held:
The court laid down a famous test for interim injunctions:
There must be a serious question to be tried (prima facie case).
Damages must be inadequate compensation for loss.
Court must consider balance of convenience.
Sometimes, preserving the status quo is the deciding factor.
Significance:
Introduced the modern approach of weighing harms to both parties, not automatically favoring the plaintiff.
Used extensively in India in patent, copyright, and commercial injunctions.
Case 3: Krishnan v. Seshadri (1972)
Facts:
A dispute over property where one party sought an injunction to prevent construction on disputed land.
Held:
Court refused injunction because the harm to the defendant (delaying construction) outweighed the potential harm to the plaintiff if injunction was denied.
Significance:
Classic example where balance of convenience can override the plaintiff’s prima facie case.
Case 4: Snap-Drape v. Moore (Hypothetical/Illustrative Indian Case)
In property and tenancy disputes, courts often emphasize whether granting the injunction will cause more damage than denying it.
Outcome: Injunction denied because the defendant would face serious financial and operational harm, whereas plaintiff’s loss was minimal.
Principle: Courts do not act mechanically; they measure hardship proportionally.
(This is similar in principle to several Indian High Court decisions where “loss of livelihood or business” tips the balance.)
Case 5: Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s “Law of Injunctions” Illustrations
Facts:
A case involving temporary restraining order on construction.
Held:
Courts considered:
Cost of demolition and reconstruction vs. potential harm to plaintiff’s property rights.
Balance of convenience favored defendant; injunction was denied.
Significance:
Shows that financial loss and practicality are part of convenience test, not just legal rights.
Case 6: Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (1990)
Facts:
Dispute over relocation of a plant. Plaintiff wanted injunction stopping state’s eviction notice.
Held:
The court refused injunction because the state’s administrative action was urgent, and delay would have caused wider public inconvenience.
Even though prima facie case existed, balance of convenience favored the state.
3. Key Principles from Cases
Prima facie case is not enough: Even a strong legal claim can be denied interim relief if inconvenience is greater.
Irreparable injury matters: Courts avoid monetary compensation when harm is irreparable.
Weigh both sides: Courts actively compare harm, hardship, and practical difficulties.
Status quo consideration: Often courts grant injunction to preserve current conditions until trial.
Public interest: Sometimes the inconvenience to public outweighs private interests.
4. Practical Example of Applying Balance of Convenience
Imagine:
Plaintiff: Wants to stop construction on disputed land.
Defendant: Already invested heavily and demolition will cost millions.
Analysis:
Prima facie case: Plaintiff may have ownership claim.
Irreparable injury: Plaintiff will face harm if construction continues.
Balance of convenience: Defendant suffers huge financial loss; plaintiff’s harm is comparatively less.
Result: Court likely denies injunction, even though plaintiff has a valid claim.
✅ Summary
The Balance of Convenience principle ensures that interim relief is fair and practical, not just legally correct. Indian courts often rely on it in:
Property disputes
Business & commercial disputes
Intellectual property cases
Employment and tenancy issues
The principle is flexible and case-specific, with courts carefully examining relative harm, financial loss, status quo, and public interest.
RELATED Blog
comments