Blog Details

An anti-suit injunction is a specific type of injunction that prohibits one of the parties involved in a legal dispute from pursuing legal action in a foreign court. Essentially, this type of court order prevents a party from either starting or continuing proceedings in another jurisdiction. 

For instance, in a scenario where two entities located in the United Kingdom (UK) and India are in a dispute, the entity in the UK may seek legal recourse in a forum within the United Kingdom (UK) that is not a natural or convenient choice for the other, and where the other entity is not under its jurisdiction. The opposing party can then approach the local courts and request that all conflicts be resolved in a single court, thereby obtaining an injunction to prohibit the other party from seeking legal remedies in a foreign jurisdiction.

Supreme Court in the landmark case of Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket PTE. Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC 341, discussed and outlined the principles for granting an anti-suit injunction. The Court established following principles for courts to follow when deciding whether to grant an anti-suit injunction:

"(1) In exercising discretion to grant an anti-suit injunction the court must be satisfied of the following aspects : -

(a) the defendant, against whom injunction is sought, is amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the court;

(b) if the injunction is declined the ends of justice will be defeated and injustice will be perpetuated; and

(c) the principle of comity - respect for the court in which the commencement or continuance of action/proceeding is sought to be restrained - must be borne in mind;

(2) in a case where more forums than one are available, the Court in exercise of its discretion to grant anti-suit injunction will examine as to which is the appropriate forum (forum convenience) having regard to the convenience of the parties and may grant anti-suit injunction in regard to proceedings which are oppressive or vexatious or in a forum non-convenience;

(3) Where jurisdiction of a court is invoked on the basis of jurisdiction clause in a contract, the recitals therein in regard to exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction of the court of choice of the parties are not determinative but are relevant factors and when a question arises as to the nature of jurisdiction agreed to between the parties the court has to decide the same on a true interpretation of the contract on the facts and in the circumstances of each case;

(4) a court of natural jurisdiction will not normally grant anti-suit injunction against a defendant before it where parties have agreed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a court including a foreign court, a forum of their choice in regard to the commencement or continuance of proceedings in the court of choice, save in an exceptional case for good and sufficient reasons, with a view to prevent injustice in circumstances such as which permit a contracting party to be relieved of the burden of the contract; or since the date of the contract the circumstances or subsequent events have made it impossible for the party seeking injunction to prosecute the case in the court of choice because the essence of the jurisdiction of the court does not exist or because of a vis major or force majeure and the like;

(5) where parties have agreed, under a non- exclusive jurisdiction clause, to approach a neutral foreign forum and be governed by the law applicable to it for the resolution of their disputes arising under the contract, ordinarily no anti- suit injunction will be granted in regard to proceedings in such a forum convenience and favoured forum as it shall be presumed that the parties have thought over their convenience and all other relevant factors before submitting to non-exclusive jurisdiction of the court of their choice which cannot be treated just an alternative forum; 

(6) a party to the contract containing jurisdiction clause cannot normally be prevented from approaching the court of choice of the parties as it would amount to aiding breach of the contract; yet when one of the parties to the jurisdiction clause approaches the court of choice in which exclusive or non- exclusive jurisdiction is created, the proceedings in that court cannot per se be treated as vexatious or oppressive nor can the court be said to be forum non-convenience; and 

(7) the burden of establishing that the forum of choice is a forum non-convenience or the proceedings therein are oppressive or vexatious would be on the party so contending to aver and prove the same."

Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Matters:

The power of Family Court to grant injunctions in marital disputes create the possibility of an anti-suit injunction being enforceable. This power can be traced to Explanation (d) in Section 7(1)(b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 

Explanation (d) to section 7(1)(b) of the Act reads- "Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.

Explanation.-The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:-

(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship;"

Nevertheless, the Family Court must exercise prudence when deciding to grant such a remedy.

Landmark Judgments:

In the case of Vivek Rai Gupta vs Niyati Gupta Civil Appeal No(s). 1123/2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "If the execution proceedings are filed by the respondent wife for executing the aforesaid decree passed by the US court against any other movable/immovable property in India it would be open to the appellant husband to resist the said execution petition on any grounds available to him in law taking the position that such a decree is not executable. At that stage, it shall also be permissible for the appellant husband to take a plea that the decree in question was passed by US court even after the injunction orders passed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, should not be executed. It will also be permissible for the respondent wife to plead that the decree passed is not in violation of any orders and it would be for the court where the execution petition is filed to decide such an issue in accordance with law."

In the case of Dinesh Singh Thakur vs Sonal Thakur, Civil Appeal No. 3878 of 2018, the appellant husband filed a plea under section 13 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife in a court in Gurgaon. The wife then filed for divorce in a court in Florida, USA. The husband filed a civil suit in Gurgaon to prevent his wife from pursuing the divorce petition in the US court. He was granted an interim injunction, but it was later vacated. The husband filed a petition with the High Court, but it was rejected. Finally the matter was before the Supreme Court.

"The contention that the respondent-wife has filed the petition for divorce in the court at USA on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage which is not the ground provided for divorce under the Act requires consideration. The mere fact that the respondent-wife has filed the case on the ground which is not available to her under the Act, doesn’t means that there are likelihood of her being succeeding in getting a decree for divorce. Specifically, in view of the fact that the appellant has raised this contention before the Circuit Court, Florida and both the parties will produce evidence with regard to the question whether their marriage is governed by the Act or any other law.

Foreign court cannot be presumed to be exercising its jurisdiction wrongly even after the appellant being able to prove that the parties in the present case are continued to be governed by the law governing Hindus in India in the matter of dispute between them.

In view of above discussion and after having regard to the nature of case and other peculiar facts, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the decision rendered by the High Court. We are of the opinion that the proceedings in the Foreign Court cannot be said to be oppressive or vexatious. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs." the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed.

In the case of George Koshy versus Sarah Koshy, (2021) 2 HLR 622, an anti-suit injunction was filed to prevent the respondent from proceeding with her divorce petition filed in Australia. The Kerala High Court referred to anti- suit injunction in Chapter 23 in 'The Global Indians and The Law' by Shri Anil Malhotra and Ranjit Malhotra, published by OakBridge, which reads:

"When between the same parties, litigating on the same subject matter, and based on the same cause of action, only one Court has jurisdiction, it is said to have exclusive jurisdiction. However, if more Courts than one have jurisdiction over the same matter, they are called Courts of concurrent jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the criteria to determine which is the more appropriate jurisdiction for the adjudication of the matter, either party can elect to restrain the other party, not to proceed with the same litigation in the other non preferred jurisdiction. In such process, Courts in different jurisdictions cannot restrain each other. However, the same parties appearing before both the Courts in different jurisdictions, can seek an injunction to restrain the other party, from proceeding in the other non- preferential jurisdiction with the same matter. Such suits seeking restraint of proceedings in one jurisdiction are called Anti-Suit Injunctions."

References:

https://bnblegal.com/article/anti-suit-injunction-against-foreign-divorce-proceedings/

https://www.tclindia.in/anti-suit-in-injunction-in-matrimonial-matters/

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/07/20/anti-suit-injunctions-a-brief-judicial-overview/