2018 (4) TMI 1923 - SC - Indian Laws

Entitlement to husband to the decree of anti-suit injunction against the respondent-wife - proceedings in the Foreign Court are oppressive or not - HELD THAT - Anti-Suit Injunctions are meant to restrain a party to a suit/proceeding from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court. Simply put, an anti-suit injunction is a judicial order restraining one party from prosecuting a case in another court outside its jurisdiction. The principles governing grant of injunction are common to that of granting anti-suit injunction. The cases of injunction are basically governed by the doctrine of equity. It is a well-settled law that the courts in India have power to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, in an appropriate case. However, before passing the order of anti-suit injunction, courts should be very cautious and careful, and it should be granted sparingly and not as a matter of routine as such orders involve a court impinging on the jurisdiction of another court, which is not entertained very easily specially when the it restrains the parties from instituting or continuing a case in a foreign court. It appears from the proceedings recorded before the US court that the respondent herself has admitted that the Family Court Gurgaon has jurisdiction in the given case. The evidence placed on record is sufficient enough to show that the respondent is amenable to the personal jurisdiction of Gurugram Family Court. Though the respondent-wife is amenable to the jurisdiction of Family Court, Gurgaon, there is nothing on record to hold that the other party will suffer grave injustice if the injunction is not granted. There is no dispute to the fact that both the parties are permanent citizens of U.S. Undisputedly, the Circuit Court, Florida, USA is also having the concurrent jurisdiction in the given case. 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. The proceedings in the Foreign Court cannot be said to be oppressive or vexatious - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to Anti-Suit Injunction
2. Jurisdiction and Convenience of Forum
3. Applicability of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
4. Grounds for Divorce and Multiplicity of Proceedings
5. Equitable Relief and Principles Governing Anti-Suit Injunctions

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Anti-Suit Injunction:

Point for Consideration: Whether the appellant-husband is entitled to the decree of anti-suit injunction against the respondent-wife?

Rival Submissions: The appellant-husband argued that the respondent-wife's initiation of divorce proceedings in the USA, after being served in India, constitutes an abuse of process and multiplicity of proceedings. The respondent-wife contended that her petition in Florida includes various reliefs not available under Indian law, and staying the proceedings would cause irreparable harm.

Discussion: The court highlighted that anti-suit injunctions are meant to restrain a party from prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court. The principles governing the grant of injunctions are similar to those of anti-suit injunctions, which are essentially equitable reliefs. The court emphasized that such injunctions should be granted sparingly and with caution, considering they involve impinging on another court's jurisdiction.

2. Jurisdiction and Convenience of Forum:

Rival Submissions: The appellant-husband argued that the Gurgaon court is the convenient forum since the respondent-wife resides there. The respondent-wife countered that the Florida court is also a competent jurisdiction and provides reliefs not available under Indian law.

Discussion: The court noted that both parties are permanent citizens of the USA, and the Circuit Court in Florida has concurrent jurisdiction. The evidence showed that the respondent-wife is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Family Court in Gurgaon. However, the court found no substantial evidence that the appellant-husband would suffer grave injustice if the injunction was not granted, especially since he has been residing in the USA.

3. Applicability of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:

Rival Submissions: The appellant-husband argued that Section 41(b) of the SR Act is not applicable as it pertains to injunctions for proceedings in Indian courts. He cited precedents to support his claim.

Discussion: The court referred to Section 41 of the SR Act, which outlines circumstances under which an injunction cannot be granted. It emphasized that the provision is meant to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and should be interpreted cautiously. The court found that the appellant's reliance on Section 41(b) was misplaced as it primarily concerns Indian courts.

4. Grounds for Divorce and Multiplicity of Proceedings:

Rival Submissions: The appellant-husband contended that the respondent-wife's petition in Florida, based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage, is not a ground under the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent-wife argued that her petition includes additional reliefs like equitable distribution of assets and child support.

Discussion: The court acknowledged that the respondent-wife's petition in Florida includes grounds not available under Indian law. However, it noted that the mere filing of a case on such grounds does not guarantee success. The court emphasized that both parties would have the opportunity to present evidence regarding the applicable matrimonial law.

5. Equitable Relief and Principles Governing Anti-Suit Injunctions:

Discussion: The court reiterated the principles governing anti-suit injunctions, as established in previous judgments. It emphasized that such injunctions should be granted only when necessary to prevent injustice and should respect the principle of comity between courts. The court found that the proceedings in the Florida court could not be deemed oppressive or vexatious.

Conclusion: The court concluded that there was no sufficient ground to interfere with the High Court's decision. It held that the proceedings in the foreign court were not oppressive or vexatious and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.