The Saket Court, New Delhi, has granted an ad-interim injunction in a dispute between two rival resident welfare associations of Pamposh Enclave, restraining the defendants from circulating pamphlets or making statements alleged to be false and misleading regarding court orders and the conduct of elections.
The order was passed in a suit filed by Pamposh Residents Welfare Association (PRWA) against Pamposh Enclave Resident Welfare Association (PERWA) and its office bearers. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had floated a parallel society with a deceptively similar name and were issuing communications to residents claiming that PRWA had failed to conduct elections despite there being no court restraint.
PRWA relied on an earlier order dated 6 May 2023 passed by the South-East District Court, Saket, which restrained PRWA from calling a General Body Meeting or conducting elections. It was contended that despite being aware of this subsisting order, the defendants circulated pamphlets suggesting that there was no court stay, thereby misleading residents and damaging the plaintiff society’s reputation.
Opposing the plea, the defendants argued that no prima facie case for injunction was made out and raised objections regarding pecuniary jurisdiction and alleged defects in the plaint. During the hearing, PRWA agreed to restrict its claim for damages from ₹50 lakh to ₹3 lakh to bring the suit within the court’s pecuniary jurisdiction.
After examining the record, the Court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case limited to the reliefs relating to misleading communications and misrepresentation of court orders. The Court observed that the contents of the impugned pamphlets appeared to be in disregard of the earlier judicial order and were capable of misleading residents. It further held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of restraining such statements and that reputational harm could constitute irreparable loss.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants from circulating any pamphlet, notice, or communication, or from making any oral or written statement falsely claiming that there was no stay on elections or misrepresenting judicial orders concerning the plaintiff society, till the disposal of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Court clarified that the observations were only for the purpose of deciding interim relief and not on the merits of the case.
The matter has been listed for further consideration of pending applications on 18 March 2026.
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff: Sh. Vishnu Mehra, Sr. Standing Counsel, Sh. Swarnendu Chatterjee, Ms. Varisha Sharma and Sh. Ali Abbas Masoodi, Ld. Counsel.
For the Defendants (1 to 5) : Sh. Lokesh Bhardwaj (D-2757/2018), Sh. Shivam Chauhan, and Sh. jatin, Ld. Counsel
