2003 (1) TMI 734 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in vacating the anti-suit injunction granted by a learned Single Judge.
2. Principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunction.
3. Jurisdiction clause in the contract and its implications.
4. Determination of forum conveniens and forum non-conveniens.
5. Application of principles from relevant case laws.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in vacating the anti-suit injunction granted by a learned Single Judge.
The Supreme Court examined whether the Division Bench erred in vacating the anti-suit injunction that restrained the respondent from proceeding with the action in the English Court. The appellants argued that the Indian Court was the natural and appropriate forum and that the action in the English Court was vexatious and oppressive. The Division Bench dismissed the motion, emphasizing that an anti-suit injunction could only be granted if a party commenced litigation in a Foreign Court in breach of a contract stipulating exclusive jurisdiction of Indian Courts.

Issue 2: Principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunction.
The Court noted that anti-suit injunctions are an equitable relief and should be granted sparingly, respecting the rule of comity. The principles include:
- The defendant must be amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the court.
- Declining the injunction would defeat the ends of justice.
- Respect for the jurisdiction of the foreign court must be maintained.
- The court must determine the appropriate forum (forum conveniens) and whether the foreign proceedings are oppressive or vexatious.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction clause in the contract and its implications.
The contract contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause submitting to the jurisdiction of the English Courts. The Court emphasized that such clauses are not determinative but relevant. The parties' intention to resolve disputes in accordance with English law by an English Court must be respected unless strong reasons justify disregarding the contractual obligations.

Issue 4: Determination of forum conveniens and forum non-conveniens.
The Court discussed that the appropriate forum is determined by factors such as convenience, expense, availability of witnesses, and the law governing the transaction. The English Court was considered a forum of choice, and the appellants failed to show good and sufficient reasons to justify an anti-suit injunction.

Issue 5: Application of principles from relevant case laws.
The Court referred to several case laws, including:
- Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Western Company of North America: Highlighted the necessity of anti-suit injunctions in rare cases to prevent injustice.
- British Indian Steam Navigation Co.Ltd. vs. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries: Discussed the interpretation of jurisdiction clauses.
- SNI Aerospatiale vs. Lee Kui Jak: Emphasized that foreign proceedings must be oppressive or vexatious to grant an anti-suit injunction.
- Donohue vs. Armco Inc: Stressed that strong reasons are required to displace the claim under an exclusive jurisdiction clause.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no valid reasons to grant an anti-suit injunction in favor of the appellants, as it would disregard the jurisdiction clause and the intention of the parties to resolve disputes in the English Court. The appeal was dismissed with costs.