Compensation for obtaining arrest, attachment or injunction on insufficient grounds
Full Text
(1) Where, in any suit in which an arrest or attachment has been effected or a temporary injunction granted under the last preceding section,—
(a) it appears to the Court that such arrest, attachment or injunction was applied for on insufficient grounds, or
(b) the suit of the plaintiff fails and it appears to the Court that there was no reasonable or probable ground for instituting the same,
the defendant may apply to the Court, and the Court may, upon such application, award against the plaintiff by its order such amount not exceeding fifty thousand rupees, as it deems a reasonable compensation to the defendant for the expense or injury (including injury to reputation) caused to him:
Provided that a Court shall not award, under this section, an amount exceeding the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction.
(2) An order determining any such application shall bar any suit for compensation in respect of such arrest, attachment or injunction.
Plain English Summary
Section 95 enables a defendant to summarily claim statutory compensation up to ₹50,000 against a plaintiff who obtained arrest, attachment, or a temporary injunction on insufficient grounds or without reasonable cause, while barring subsequent separate civil suits for damages once decided.
Key Legal Elements
- Prerequisite Orders: Arrest or attachment effected, or temporary injunction granted under Section 94.
- Dual Alternative Grounds: (a) Applied for on insufficient grounds, or (b) Suit fails and lacked reasonable/probable cause.
- Scope of Recoverable Harm: Compensation covers direct expenses, actual injury, and specifically injury to reputation.
- Statutory Ceiling & Pecuniary Cap: Maximum summary compensation capped at ₹50,000, not exceeding the court's pecuniary limits.
- Absolute Bar on Separate Suit (Sec 95(2)): Any order determining an application under Section 95 acts as res judicata barring an independent civil suit for damages.
Punishment
Summary compensation up to ₹50,000 awarded against plaintiff for wrongful arrest, attachment, or injunction
Practical Note
Strategic Election of Remedy & Bar on Tortious Action: (1) Summary Remedy vs Full Tort Suit for Malicious Legal Process: A defendant subjected to wrongful attachment or malicious injunction has an election of remedies: (a) apply summarily under Section 95 (quick, no court fees, but capped at ₹50,000), or (b) file an independent regular civil suit for damages for abuse of legal process / malicious attachment (claim can be lakhs/crores, but requires full trial and ad valorem court fee). (2) Res Judicata Effect of Sec 95(2): If the defendant chooses to file an application under Section 95 and the court determines it on merits (whether granting or rejecting compensation), a subsequent independent suit for damages is absolutely barred. (3) Appealability: An order determining an application under Section 95 is expressly appealable under Section 104(1)(ff) / Order XLIII Rule 1.
हिंदी पाठ
(1) जहाँ किसी ऐसे वाद में जिसमें पिछली पूर्वगामी धारा के अधीन कोई गिरफ्तारी या कुर्की की गई है अथवा कोई अस्थायी व्यादेश (इंजंक्शन) मंजूर किया गया है,—
(क) न्यायालय को यह प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी गिरफ्तारी, कुर्की या व्यादेश के लिए अपर्याप्त आधारों पर आवेदन किया गया था, या
(ख) वादी का वाद विफल हो जाता है और न्यायालय को यह प्रतीत होता है कि उसे संस्थित करने का कोई युक्तियुक्त या अधिसंभाव्य (reasonable or probable) आधार नहीं था,
वहाँ प्रतिवादी न्यायालय से आवेदन कर सकेगा, और न्यायालय ऐसे आवेदन पर वादी के विरुद्ध अपने आदेश द्वारा उतनी रकम, जो पचास हजार रुपये से अधिक न हो, अधिनिर्णीत कर सकेगा जितनी वह प्रतिवादी को हुई व्यय या हानि (जिसके अंतर्गत ख्याति की हानि भी है) के लिए युक्तियुक्त प्रतिकर (compensation) समझे:
परन्तु न्यायालय इस धारा के अधीन अपनी धन-संबंधी (pecuniary) अधिकारिता की सीमाओं से अधिक की रकम अधिनिर्णीत नहीं करेगा।
(2) ऐसे किसी आवेदन को अवधारित करने वाला आदेश ऐसी गिरफ्तारी, कुर्की या व्यादेश के संबंध में प्रतिकर के किसी वाद का वर्जन करेगा।