Section 95 — Compensation for arrest, attachment or injunction on insufficient grounds
The holding powers of § 94 are strong — so § 95 supplies the check. If a plaintiff obtained an arrest, attachment or temporary injunction on insufficient grounds (or his suit fails and was groundless), the defendant can claim compensation in the same suit — up to ₹50,000 — and that order bars any separate suit.
How to read Section 95
A built-in remedy
If a § 94 arrest / attachment / injunction was wrongly obtained, the defendant claims compensation in the same suit — no separate action needed.
Two grounds
(a) the order was applied for on insufficient grounds; OR (b) the suit fails and there was no reasonable or probable ground for bringing it.
How much & the bar
Up to ₹50,000 (raised from ₹1,000 in 2002), never beyond the court’s pecuniary jurisdiction — and the order bars a separate suit (sub-s. 2).
The bare Act
(1) Where, in any suit in which an arrest or attachment has been effected or a temporary injunction granted under the last preceding section,—
the defendant may apply to the Court, and the Court may, upon such application, award against the plaintiff by its order such amount 1not exceeding fifty thousand rupees, as it deems a reasonable compensation to the defendant for the 2expense or injury (including injury to reputation) caused to him:
(2) An order determining any such application shall bar any suit for compensation in respect of such arrest, attachment or injunction.
1. “not exceeding fifty thousand rupees” substituted by Act 46 of 1999, s. 8 (w.e.f. 1-7-2002) for “not exceeding one thousand rupees”. 2. “expense or injury (including injury to reputation) caused to him” substituted by Act 104 of 1976, s. 32 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977) for “expense or injury caused to him”. “The last preceding section” is § 94.
Key terms decoded
— i.e. § 94. § 95 bites only where the arrest / attachment / injunction was made under § 94.
The interim order was sought without adequate basis — the court, looking back, finds the application was not justified.
The plaintiff’s suit itself fails and there was no fair basis to bring it — a stricter, twin requirement.
The remedy is triggered by the defendant’s application in the same suit — the court does not award it on its own.
The measure of compensation — money spent and harm suffered, expressly including injury to reputation (added 1976).
The statutory ceiling — raised from ₹1,000 to ₹50,000 in 2002.
A second cap (proviso): the award can never exceed what the court could otherwise try in money terms.
Once the court decides the application, no separate suit for the same compensation lies — finality.
The picture — the check on § 94
§ 95 is the safety-valve on § 94: a fast, in-suit compensation for a wrongly-obtained interim order — capped, and conclusive (no second bite by a fresh suit).
Section 95, part by part
How the two sub-sections work as one body
A capped remedy — decided once
On ground (a) or (b), the defendant’s application can win compensation — up to ₹50,000, within pecuniary jurisdiction — for expense / injury (incl. reputation).
The order on that application is final — it bars any separate suit for the same compensation.
Amendment history — a timeline
The measure of compensation was widened to expressly include “injury to reputation” — not just out-of-pocket expense or physical injury.
The ceiling was raised from ₹1,000 to ₹50,000 — restoring the section’s deterrent value after decades of inflation.
Connected provisions
Section 95 closes Part VI — Supplemental Proceedings (§§ 94–95). It is the check on § 94’s holding powers; the interim orders themselves are worked by Orders XXXVIII–XL.