CPCTemporary injunctionSupreme Court of India

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v Coca-Cola Co.

(1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 54519951 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
A commercial dispute between bottling company and brand owner regarding franchise/distribution rights. One party sought temporary injunction to maintain the status quo during litigation.
Issue
How should the court assess "balance of convenience" in the three-condition test for temporary injunction?
Held
The Dalpat Kumar test (prima facie case + balance of convenience + irreparable injury) is affirmed.
Principle
Affirmed the Dalpat Kumar three-condition test for temporary injunction. Added that while deciding balance of convenience, the court must weigh relative hardship to each party. Status quo has evidentiary weight but is not determinative.
Cite this

Facts

  • A commercial dispute between bottling company and brand owner regarding franchise/distribution rights
  • One party sought temporary injunction to maintain the status quo during litigation
  • The question was how "balance of convenience" should be assessed

Issue

  1. How should the court assess "balance of convenience" in the three-condition test for temporary injunction?

Held

  • The Dalpat Kumar test (prima facie case + balance of convenience + irreparable injury) is affirmed
  • Balance of convenience requires weighing relative hardship to both parties
  • The court asks: who suffers more if the injunction is granted vs refused?
  • Status quo has evidentiary weight (the existing arrangement is presumptively fair) but is not determinative
  • The court exercises equitable discretion, no mechanical application

Ratio decidendi

Balance of convenience = relative hardship analysis. Status quo carries weight but doesn't automatically decide. The court weighs harm to both parties in granting vs refusing.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

- Key line: "In Gujarat Bottling v. Coca-Cola (1995), the Supreme Court affirmed Dalpat Kumar and held that balance of convenience requires weighing relative hardship. Status quo is relevant but not determinative."

Cite this

Citation

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca-Cola Co. (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 545

Reported: (1995) 5 SCC 545; verified via standard CPC references. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.