Can a court use Section 151 CPC to give an interim injunction?

Courts have inherent powers under S.151, but they should not bypass express provisions. If Order 39 applies, use Order 39.

Was the anti-suit injunction against the Asansol case valid?

No. The Supreme Court lifted it. Both Indore and Asansol had jurisdiction; filing in Asansol was not an abuse of process.

Do CPC provisions limit inherent powers?

They neither limit nor control S.151 in general, but when a specific rule exists (like Order 39), courts should follow that rule.

Key takeaway for students?

Use the specific rule first. Invoke S.151 only to fill gaps, not to override clear procedures like Order 39 for interim injunctions.

What was the final result?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the interim injunction. The Asansol suit could proceed.

manohar-lal-chopra-v-seth-hiralal-air-1962-sc-527

Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal — Inherent Powers (S.151) vs Order 39 CPC

Author: Gulzar Hashmi India CASE_TITLE: Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 151 CPC, Order 39, interim injunction SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: anti-suit injunction, inherent powers PUBLISH_DATE: 22 Oct 2025 Slug: manohar-lal-chopra-v-seth-hiralal-air-1962-sc-527

Quick Jump

Summary Issues Rules Facts Arguments Judgment Ratio Why It Matters Key Takeaways Mnemonic IRAC Glossary FAQs Related

Hero image for Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal case explainer

Quick Summary

Simple rule: Courts have inherent powers (S.151 CPC), but they should not use them to override a clear rule. For interim injunctions, the code already gives a pathway—Order 39. Use that first. Here, the Supreme Court lifted the anti-suit injunction because both courts had jurisdiction and there was no abuse of process.

S.151 O.39 AIR 1962 SC 527

Issues

Can a court grant an interim injunction by using S.151 CPC when Order 39 already covers injunctions?
Could the Indore court restrain the party from proceeding with the Asansol suit (anti-suit injunction) based on a jurisdiction clause?

Rules

S.151 CPC: Courts have inherent powers to do justice and prevent abuse, but not to defeat express provisions.
Order 39 CPC: Specific framework for temporary/interim injunctions; should be used where applicable.
Jurisdiction clauses: They guide forum choice but cannot exclude a court that otherwise has lawful jurisdiction.

Facts — Timeline

Partnership dissolved (1945): “Diamond Industries” closed by deed; disputes to be tried in Indore as per clause.

Suit in Asansol (1948): Appellant seeks share/accounts despite clause.

Suit in Indore (1949): Respondent files, relying on jurisdiction clause; asks for injunction to stop Asansol case.

Indore court: Grants interim injunction restraining Asansol proceedings.

High Court: Upholds injunction, citing the clause and need to avoid parallel suits.

Supreme Court: Allows appeal; sets aside injunction; says use Order 39 rules and don’t misuse S.151.

Timeline for Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal

Arguments (Appellant vs Respondent)

Appellant

Asansol court had jurisdiction; filing there was not abuse of process.
Injunction must be tested under Order 39, not stretched under S.151.
Anti-suit injunction was unjustified.

Respondent

Parties chose Indore; parallel Asansol case should be restrained.
Court can rely on S.151 to prevent multiplicity and hardship.

Judgment

Held: The Asansol suit was not an abuse; both courts had jurisdiction. The interim injunction issued by the Indore court was set aside. While S.151 exists, it cannot override the specific scheme of Order 39 for interim injunctions.

Ratio Decidendi

Inherent powers (S.151) survive, but should not bypass express provisions like Order 39.
Anti-suit injunctions require strict grounds; mere existence of a jurisdiction clause is not enough when another competent court is seized.

Why It Matters

This case teaches the hierarchy of remedies: use the specific rule first. Reserve S.151 for gaps or emergencies—not as a shortcut around Order 39.

Key Takeaways

Order 39 first: Assess temporary injunctions under the specific rules.
No S.151 override: Inherent powers cannot nullify express provisions.
Jurisdiction clauses guide, but don’t automatically oust other competent courts.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “RULE BEFORE POWER.”

Check: Does a specific CPC rule apply? (Order 39)
Choose: Use the specific rule for injunctions.
Only then: If a gap remains, consider S.151.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Whether courts can rely on S.151 to grant interim injunctions when Order 39 provides a specific scheme; validity of anti-suit restraint.
Rule	Inherent powers under S.151 exist but cannot override express provisions; Order 39 governs temporary injunctions.
Application	Indore court’s injunction rested on S.151 and a jurisdiction clause; SC held Order 39 controls and both courts had jurisdiction.
Conclusion	Injunction lifted; Asansol suit may proceed; use Order 39 for such reliefs.

Glossary

Inherent Powers (S.151): Residual powers to secure justice and prevent abuse; not a license to ignore specific rules.
Order 39: CPC provisions for temporary injunctions and related reliefs.
Anti-Suit Injunction: Order restraining a party from proceeding with a case in another court; granted sparingly.

FAQs

Only to fill genuine gaps where Order 39 does not apply. It cannot replace Order 39’s tests.

Not automatically. If more than one court has jurisdiction in law, a clause cannot oust another competent court unless clearly exclusive and lawful.

Because Asansol had jurisdiction and filing there was not an abuse of process.

“Specific beats general: Order 39 governs; S.151 cannot be used to sidestep it.”