In Wharton's Law Lexicon, 14th Edn. at p. 95 1, status quo has been edefined as meaning:

In Wharton's Law Lexicon, 14th Edn. at p. 95 1, status quo has been edefined as meaning:

"The existing state of things at any given date; e.g., Status quo ante bellum, the state of things before the war."

20. According to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn. the relevant passage occurs:

"The existing state of things at any given date. Status quo ante bellum, the state of things before the war. 'Status quo' to be preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy."

21.This Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar' stated thus: (SCC p.398, para 5) "According to the ordinary legal connotation, the term status quo' implies the existing state of things at any given point of time."

22.When the removal of padlock was complained of in the appeal filed by the appellants herein, strangely delivery of possession was ordered! The said order clearly betrays lack of understanding as to the scope of contempt jurisdiction and proceeds upon a total misappreciation of the facts. We are obliged to remark that both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench had not kept themselves within the precincts of contempt jurisdiction. Instead peculiar orders have come to be passed totally alien to the issue and disregardful of the facts. The orders of the learned Single Judge and that of the Division Bench cannot stand even a moment's scrutiny. Therefore, it is idle to contend that no interference is warranted under Article 136.

23.Apart from the fact whether A.K. Ghosh had a legal authority to sublease or not it was not open to him to grant a sublease in violation of the order. It is no use contending as Mr Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondents does, that there was a bar to such a sublease under the terms of the status quo order. It has the effect of violating the preservation of status of the property. This will all the more be so when this is done without the leave of the court to disturb the state of things as they then stood. It would amount to violation of the order. The principle contained in the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' has no application at all to the facts of this case when in violation of status quo order a sub-tenancy has been created. Equally, the contention that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without recourse to law is without merit, because the state of affairs in relation to property as on September 15, 1988 is what the court is concerned with. Such an order cannot be circumvented by parties with impunity and expect the court to confer its blessings. It does not matter that to the contempt proceedings Somani Builders was not a party. It cannot gain an advantage in derogation of the rights of the parties, who were litigating originally. If the right of subtenancy is recognised, how is status quo as of September 15, 1988 maintained? Hence, the grant of sublease is contrary to the order of status quo. Any act done in the teeth of the order of status quo is clearly illegal. All actions including the grant of sublease are clearly illegal.

 

Supreme Court of India

Styabrata Biswas vs Kalyan Kumar Kisku on 27 January, 1994

Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 1837, 1994 SCR (1) 413

#injunction

#breach