The court found that while the trial court correctly identified that the respondent approached the court with unclean hands due to disputed allegations of illegal water connection and unpaid bills, it erred by granting an unconditional injunction. The proper exercise of judicial discretion required the imposition of conditions, such as security for the disputed amount, to balance the interests of both parties. The respondent, being a large institution, could have been required to deposit the disputed sum pending the outcome of the suit. The trial court's failure to do so amounted to a misdirection, warranting appellate intervention. The appeal was allowed, the lower court's ruling set aside, and a conditional order for deposit of the disputed sum was made.