9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sily 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. - CIVIL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arte ad interim injunction to the appellant-husband. Being aggrieved, the respondent-wife filed an application for vacation and modification of the order dated 26.09.2016. Learned District Judge, vide order dated 18.10.2016, vacated the injunction granted vide order dated 26.09.2016. (d) Aggrieved by the order vacating injunction, the appellant-husband preferred CR No. 7190 of 2016 before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 03.11.2016 dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-husband. (e) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.11.2016, the appellant-husband has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court. 4 Heard Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the appellant-husband and Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the respondent-wife and perused the record. Point(s) for consideration:- 5. The only point for consideration before this Court is whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-husband is entitled to the decree of anti-suit injunction against the respondent-wife? Rival submissions:- 6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-husband contended tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicial 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. 10. 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. 11. In this backdrop, it is worthwhile to quote Section 41 of the SR Act which provides for various instances and circumstances under which injunction cannot be granted. 41. Injunction when refused.-An injunction cannot be granted- (a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction is declined, the ends of justice will be defeated and injustice will be perpetuated and; The principle of comity-respect for the court in which the commencement or continuation of action/proceeding is sought to be restrained-must be borne in mind. 14. In Modi Entertainment Networks (supra), this Court has reiterated this position by holding that the courts in India like Court in England are courts of law and equity. The principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunction being essentially an equitable relief; the courts in India have the powers to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction in an appropriate case; this is because the courts of equity exercise jurisdiction in personam; this power has to be exercised sparingly where such an injunction is sought and if not granted, it would amount to the defeat of ends of justice and injustice would be perpetuated. 15. In Vivek Rai Gupta vs. Niyati Gupta, Civil Appeal No. 1123 of 2006, decided on February 10, 2016, this Court has held as under:- If the execution proceedings are filed by the respondent-wife for executing the aforesaid decree dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The contention that the appellant-husband will suffer grave injustice if the proceedings are allowed to be continued in the Circuit Court, Florida USA doesn t stand to the ground as the appellant himself has been residing there after 2007 and the proceedings for grant of anti-suit injunction were initiated by him in India through another person by empowering him through a power of attorney to file and pursue the disputed litigation on his behalf. Further, there is nothing brought on record to show how the appellant-husband would suffer grave injustice if the injunction restraining the respondent-wife from pursuing the divorce petition in Florida, is not granted. Still further, even if the injunction is declined, it cannot be said that the ends of justice will be defeated and injustice will be perpetuated. 19. The contention that the respondent-wife has filed the petition for divorce in the court at USA on the ground of irretrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
