Saket District Court, New Delhi: In an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) arising out of inter se dispute between two resident welfare associations, namely Pamposh Residents Welfare Association (PRWA) and Pamposh Enclave Resident Welfare Association (PERWA), claiming to represent the residents of Pamposh Enclave and alleging creation of a parallel society with a deceptively similar name and the circulation of pamphlets and announcements purportedly misrepresenting subsisting judicial orders relating to the conduct of elections, Yashu Khurana, J., partly allowed the application, granted ad-interim injunction against misrepresentation of court orders and restrained the defendants from —
-
Circulating any pamphlet, notice, or communication, or making any oral or written statement falsely claiming that there is no stay order on elections; and
-
Misrepresenting, distorting, or making false statements regarding judicial orders passed in relation to the plaintiff society, till disposal of the injunction application.
In the instant matter, the plaintiff-PRWA, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Defendant 1-PERWA, is also a society registered under the same Act, while Defendants 2 to 5 are residents of Pamposh Enclave and office bearers of Defendant 1.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had created a society with a “deceptively similar name” with the intention to constitute a “parallel society and usurp the management of Pamposh Enclave.” It was further contended that Defendant 2 to 4 had earlier filed a suit, in which plaintiff herein was arrayed as Defendant 2 and Saket District Court restrained the plaintiff from calling any General Body Meeting (GBM) or conducting elections for its governing body. According to the plaintiff, despite being aware of this subsisting order, the defendants circulated pamphlets and announcements stating that no elections were held by the plaintiff society “even though, there is no stay or injunction by any court.” The plaintiff asserted that such statements were issued “in complete disregard of the order dated 06-05-2023” and were intended “to mis-lead the residents of Pamposh Enclave.”
The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants, inter alia, from —
-
Using a name identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff society,
-
Circulating pamphlets or communications falsely claiming that there was no stay on elections,
-
Holding themselves out as office bearers of any residents’ welfare association other than the plaintiff society, and
-
Misrepresenting or distorting judicial orders passed in relation to the plaintiff society.
The Court reiterated that for grant of temporary injunction, the plaintiff must satisfy the three-fold test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
On a perusal of the announcement circulated by Defendant 1, the Court observed that it had been made “in complete disregard of the order, dated 06-05-2023” and “appears to have been made to mislead the residents of Pamposh Enclave.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case with respect to the reliefs relating to circulation of misleading statements and misrepresentation of judicial orders, but not in respect of the remaining reliefs.
Dealing with objections regarding defects in the Statement of Truth, the Court observed that “procedural laws are hand-maiden of justice” and directed the plaintiff to file a fresh Statement of Truth.
On the question of balance of convenience, the Court held that restraining the defendants from making false statements would not cause them significant loss, whereas the plaintiff would suffer if such statements continued.
As regards irreparable injury, the Court noted that “reputation of a person/entity is invaluable right, the breach of which cannot always be compensated in monetary terms.” It was thus concluded that irreparable injury would ensue if the defendants were not restrained from issuing misleading communications.
The Court granted ad-interim injunction only with respect to prayer clauses (C) and (G) of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The defendants were restrained from —
-
Circulating any pamphlet, notice or communication, or making any oral or written statement falsely claiming that there is no stay order on elections, or making any other false or misleading statement regarding the plaintiff society; and
-
Misrepresenting, distorting or making false statements regarding judicial orders passed by any court in relation to the plaintiff society, till disposal of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.
The Court clarified that the observations recorded hereinabove, are not on merits of the case and directed the matter to be listed for consideration of the applications under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 CPC on 18-03-2026.
[Pamposh Resident Welfare Association v. Pamposh Enclave Resident Welfare Association, CS SCJ 97/26, Decided on 31-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Sh. Vishnu Mehra, Sr. Standing Counsel, Sh. Swarnendu, Ms. Varsha Sharma and Sh. Ali Abbas Masoodi, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Sh. Lokesh Bhardwaj, Sh. Shivam Chauhan, and Sh. Jatin, Counsel for the Defendants 1 to 5