9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strain the defendants from enforcing an anti-suit permanent injunction order passed by the High Court of Singapore. By the said order, the High Court of Singapore has restrained the plaintiff from proceeding with his petition filed against the defendants before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, raising disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement. In that context, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the NCLT is the only appropriate and competent forum to decide the disputes and grievances raised by the plaintiff, pertaining to oppression and mismanagement against the defendants. 2. The plaintiff has filed the instant interim application in the suit, seeking interim reliefs in aid of the final reliefs sought in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that since disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement under Indian law are non-arbitrable, it would be futile for him to raise the same in an arbitration proceeding initiated by defendant No. 2 at Singapore, particularly because an award passed in pursuance of such arbitral proceeding would not be enforceable in India. It is claimed that, in this backdrop, unless a temporary injunction order re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 shares of defendant No. 1 company were transferred by defendant No. 4 to defendant No. 5, who had already exited from defendant No. 1 company in the year 2014. On 24.02.2021, defendant No. 2 made a requisition along with defendant Nos. 4 and 5 as shareholders of defendant No. 1 company to convene an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting (EOGM). The EOGM was to be convened for appointing nominee of defendant No. 2 on the board; as also to appoint one or more non-executive directors on the board; to appoint defendant No. 4 as a managing director of defendant No. 1 company and defendant No. 5 as the founder director on the board. The plaintiff claims that all these actions gave rise to the cause of action for him to claim oppression and mismanagement, particularly in the backdrop that the plaintiff had been the managing director of defendant No. 1 company for more than 15 years. 6. In this backdrop, on 03.03.2021, the plaintiff filed a petition before the NCLT, Mumbai, alleging oppression and mismanagement under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The plaintiff alleged that various acts of defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 amounted to oppression and mismanagement. On this basis, va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he would move the High Court of Singapore for vacating / modifying the ex-parte order. 10. Consequently, on 31.03.2021, the plaintiff filed an application before the High Court of Singapore for vacating the ex-parte anti-suit temporary injunction order, without prejudice to his contention that the High Court of Singapore did not have jurisdiction in the matter. 11. On 01.04.2021, in the present application, this Court recorded a statement made on behalf of defendant No. 2 that the EOGM would stand adjourned to 22.04.2021. The aforesaid statement continued from time to time and on 22.11.2021, this Court passed an ad-interim order directing defendant No. 2 to adjourn the EOGM until the present application was heard and decided. 12. During the pendency of the present application and the aforesaid application filed by the plaintiff before the High Court of Singapore, wherein expert evidence on Indian Law was led by the parties, several emails were exchanged. According to the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 continued with their oppressive actions, jeopardizing the valuation process as also the process of audit, so that defendant No. 1 company would not be able to comply with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 by the High Court of Singapore. On 21.03.2022, defendant No. 2 filed summons in the High Court of Singapore for the plaintiff to be committed to prison or fine being imposed upon the plaintiff for contempt of court in the light of non-compliance with the anti-suit permanent injunction order. The plaintiff brought the aforesaid facts to the notice of this Court by filing an additional affidavit. 18. In the meanwhile, defendant No. 2 invoked the arbitration agreement contained in the SHA and an arbitral tribunal was constituted under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce for considering the claims raised by defendant No. 2 against the plaintiff as regards alleged breach of various clauses of the SHA. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the pleadings in the said proceedings have been completed and the final hearing of the same is scheduled in the third week of September, 2023. 19. In the backdrop of the committal proceedings alleging contempt against the plaintiff, the High Court of Singapore passed an order directing the plaintiff to withdraw the present proceedings, as also the petition filed before the NCLT. 20. On 06.01.2023, the Court of Appeal at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eparable loss or damage that the plaintiff would suffer in the absence of such temporary injunction and the balance of convenience being in favour of the plaintiff. In this regard, reliance was placed on judgement of this Court in the case of Modi Entertainment Network and another Vs. W. S. G. Cricket PTE Limited, (2003) 4 SCC 341 and judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Interdigital Technology Corporation Vs. Xiaomi Corporation and others [judgement and order dated 03.05.2021 passed in Interim Application No.8772 of 2020 in CS (Comm) 295 of 2020]. B. It was submitted that while demonstrating that the plaintiff indeed has a strong prima facie case in his favour, the enquiry would be limited to examining whether the plaintiff, as a consequence of the anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court of Singapore, would be left remediless in connection with his grievance regarding oppression and mismanagement in the defendant No. 1 company. The antisuit injunction granted against the plaintiff, in the present case, prohibits him from pursuing his petition pending before the NCLT on the aspect of oppression and mismanagement, while as per the recognized position of law in India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act). According to the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, this is a crucial aspect of the matter, for the reason that under the recognized public policy of India, disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement are non-arbitrable and an arbitral award deciding such disputes would be un-enforceable in India. On this basis, it was submitted that insofar as the disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement being raised by the plaintiff are concerned, the arbitration proceeding is not a remedy at all. Hence, it was emphasized that, the petition filed before the NCLT is the only remedy available in law for the plaintiff to raise disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement. E. On this basis, the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that if the anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court of Singapore was to be enforced, the plaintiff would be left remediless and without any access to justice. By relying upon judgements of the Supreme Court in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 688 and Anita Kushwaha Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case about the disputes concerning oppression and mismanagement. The arguments raised on behalf of the defendants, according to the plaintiff, about the petition filed before the NCLT being a 'dressedup' petition and the same being agitated before this Court is wholly misplaced and it cannot become a component of the aspect of prima facie case being examined by this Court in the present application. According to the plaintiff, the limited enquiry to be made by this Court is to see whether the petition, on the face of it, pertains to disputes of oppression and mismanagement and whether the NCLT has exclusive jurisdiction to decide such questions, coupled with the specific contention of the plaintiff that such disputes are non-arbitrable and if the anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court of Singapore is allowed to operate, it would lead to the plaintiff being rendered remediless. H. In that context, it was submitted that this Court could conclude that the plaintiff had failed to make out even a prima facie case regarding its right to proceed before the NCLT, if the petition filed before the NCLT, on the face of it, could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fendants claim that the disputes raised by the plaintiff before the NCLT pertain only to contractual obligations, and therefore, the parties must be referred to arbitration. It was also indicated that while considering the petition filed by the plaintiff before the NCLT, this court could apply a test akin to the test applied by courts while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), by proceeding on the basis that the statements made in the petition are true and correct. K. The learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff referred to the judgement of the Court of Appeal at Singapore to contend that findings were rendered in favour of the plaintiff, recognizing that the disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement could be ventilated by the plaintiff only before the NCLT in India. Yet, only on two grounds, the Court of Appeal at Singapore held against the plaintiff. It was submitted that in this context the Court of Appeal at Singapore wrongly referred to the present suit and application, while assessing the time period of about 10 years required for disposal, as the relevant time periods concerned the petition filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... honest attempt on the part of the plaintiff to avoid resolution of disputes through arbitration. This was appreciated in the correct perspective by the High Court of Singapore and the Court of Appeal at Singapore to hold against the plaintiff. In such a situation, the plaintiff was expected to open his case by showing as to how such a petition filed before the NCLT could even remotely be concerned with disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement. B. The learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No. 2 extensively referred to the reliefs sought in the petition filed before the NCLT, the pleadings contained therein and, on that basis, he submitted that the language used in the petition amounted to clever drafting and mere reproduction of Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, with key words picked up from judgements of various courts pertaining to disputes of oppression and mismanagement. On this basis, it was submitted that this Court, while examining as to whether a prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction in the nature of an antienforcement injunction, has to determine whether the plaintiff's petition can be considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on judgements of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Shanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 and T. Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467. F. It was submitted that existence of jurisdiction is a sine qua non or a condition precedent for the exercise of power by a court or tribunal and such jurisdictional fact must at least be prima facie established before this Court by the plaintiff. It was emphasized that the plaintiff must at least prima facie demonstrate that the petition filed before the NCLT is maintainable and satisfies the requirements of Section 242(1) (a) and 242(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, to claim the benefit of exclusive jurisdiction of NCLT by applying Section 430 thereof. Reliance was placed on judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Jain Vs. Kalinga Tubes Limited, AIR 1965 SC 1535, in support of the said proposition. In order to deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff as regards the question of the petition filed before the NCLT being a 'dressed-up' petition, it was submitted that the issue of arbitrability need not be exclusively decided by the NCLT in an application under Section 45 of the Arbitratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven a prima facie case was made out by the plaintiff to resist enforcement thereof. J. It was further submitted that this Court, while considering the present application, was entitled to examine as to whether the petition filed before the NCLT was really a petition raising disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement and that this Court could certainly apply the test of substance over form. In that context, it was submitted that the plaintiff could not claim that the test to be applied would be the test pertaining to rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. The aspect of the petition being a 'dressed-up' petition could certainly be examined by this Court while rendering a finding on the question as to whether the plaintiff was entitled for a temporary injunction order restraining enforcement of the anti-suit injunction granted by the Courts at Singapore. 25. Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No. 3 supported the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No. 2 and submitted as follows: - A. The learned senior counsel submitted in detail as to how the judgements on which the plaintiff ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utes and grievances of the plaintiff pertain to contractual obligations under the SHA and statements were made in the petition filed before the NCLT by using words and phrases from Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 and key words from the judgments relevant for the aspect of oppression and mismanagement, in the absence of any factual substratum being pleaded as regards equitable considerations relevant for disputes concerning oppression and mismanagement. On this basis, the learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No. 3 sought dismissal of the present application. 26. Ms. Rishika Harish, learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos. 4 and 5 relied upon the submissions made on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and also prayed for dismissal of the present application. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 27. In the light of the chronology of events narrated hereinabove and the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, the following questions arise for consideration: - (i) Whether grant of an anti-enforcement order during pendency of the suit, being in the nature of a temporary injunction to resist an anti-suit injunction, requires the applicant/plaintiff to satisf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertaining to oppression and mismanagement are arbitrable under Singapore law? (ix) Whether this Court can refer to and take into consideration the findings rendered by the Courts at Singapore in the proceedings initiated between the parties? CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS 28. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that while deciding the present application, whereby the plaintiff seeks temporary injunction to restrain defendant No. 2 from enforcing the anti-suit permanent injunction order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Singapore, the well-established three-pronged test of prima facie case, grave and irreparable loss being suffered in the absence of temporary injunction and balance of convenience, will have to be examined. This is because a prayer for grant of such temporary injunction amounting to an anti-enforcement action is nothing but a species of injunction, since such a relief is an equitable relief. This has been observed in the case of antisuit injunctions by the Supreme Court in Modi Entertainment Network and another Vs. W. S. G. Cricket PTE Limited (supra). This Court is of the opinion that an anti-enforcement temporary injunction order is in a sense an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e patent holder to choose the patents which it desired to enforce. The only practical relief available to an SEP holder was by way of anti-infringement action. The right to seek legal redressal, against infringement, was a fundamental right. A proceeding or an order, which resulted in divesting the patent holder of the authority to exercise this fundamental right, was ex facie oppressive in nature. Protection of the jurisdiction of the Court is also a guiding factor. (vi) Comity, as a concept, was grating to the ear, when it proceeded from a court of justice. Where the proceeding or order, of which injunction was sought, was oppressive to the applicant seeking injunction, comity was of relatively little importance, as a factor telling against grant of such injunction. Even if grant of injunction, in such circumstances, was likely to offend the foreign Court, that consideration could not operate as a factor inhibiting against such grant. Considerations of comity were, moreover, subject to the condition that the foreign law, or the foreign proceeding or order was not offensive to domestic public policy or customary international law. Comity, in any event, was a two-way street. (v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration and the various aspects that can be gone into and bundled together for arriving at a finding as regards the assertion of prima facie case made on behalf of the plaintiff. 34. It is the case of the plaintiff that the settled position of law, as applicable in India, leaves no forum for the plaintiff for adjudication of his disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement, except the NCLT. It is submitted that although the plaintiff had agreed for resolution of disputes through arbitration with the seat of arbitration being chosen as Singapore, a proper reading of the arbitration clause would show that enforcement of any award in pursuance of such arbitration proceedings, would be under the Arbitration Act. It is contended that the position of law in India is well-settled that disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement are non-arbitrable and hence, the award that may be rendered in pursuance of arbitration proceedings already initiated by the plaintiff at Singapore, would be unenforceable in India. On this basis, it is urged that unless the plaintiff is permitted to pursue his petition filed before the NCLT to raise disputes regarding oppression and mismanagem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies Act provides for filing of an application before the NCLT for relief in cases of oppression etc. Section 242 thereof specifies the powers of the NCLT, when such an application is filed under Section 241. These two provisions clearly specify that the NCLT has power to consider disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement, as also the procedure and powers to be exercised by the NCLT while considering and deciding such disputes. Section 430 of the Companies Act specifically provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter that the NCLT is empowered to determine under the Companies Act, 2013 or any other law for the time being in force. For the sake of further clarity, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 430 of the Companies Act, which reads as follows: - "430. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction. -No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tile Private Limited v/s. Indo Unique Flame Limited and others (supra), the Supreme Court categorically held as follows: "42. The broad categories of disputes which are considered to be non- arbitrable are penal offences which are visited with criminal sanction; offences pertaining to bribery/ corruption; matrimonial disputes relating to divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody and guardianship matters, which pertain to the status of a person; testamentary matters which pertain to disputes relating to the validity of a will, grant of probate, letters of administration, succession, which pertain to the status of a person, and are adjudicated by civil courts. 43. Certain categories of disputes such as consumer disputes; insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings; oppression and mismanagement, or winding up of a company; disputes relating to trusts, trustees and beneficiaries of a trust are governed by special enactments." 45. There is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff that even though certain questions in the case of N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v/s. Indo Unique Flame Limited and others (supra), were referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a dispute relating to the management of the Company or relating to any of the matters set out in this Agreement, parties to the dispute shall each appoint one nominee/representative who shall discuss in good faith to resolve the difference. In case the difference is not settled within 30 calendar days, it shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Clause 20.2 below. 20.2 All such disputes that have not been satisfactorily resolved under Clause 20.1 above shall be referred to arbitration before a sole arbitrator to be jointly appointed by the Parties. In the event the Parties are unable to agree on a sole arbitrator, one of the arbitrators shall be appointed jointly by the Founders and the second arbitrator will be appointed by WestBridge and the third arbitrator will be appointed by the other two arbitrators jointly. The arbitration proceedings shall be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down by International Chambers of Commerce and the place of arbitration shall be Singapore. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language. The parties shall equally share the costs of the arbitrator's fees, but shall bear the costs of their own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ian law, assumes significance. In such a situation, it cannot be said that since the disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement are arbitrable under Singapore law, the plaintiff has the forum of arbitration in the chosen seat at Singapore to ventilate his grievances pertaining to such disputes. What use would be the findings of the arbitral tribunal at Singapore on the question of oppression and mismanagement, when the award consisting of such findings, can never be enforced in India? 51. In the light of the specific stipulation in the above-quoted arbitration clause that the arbitral award would be enforceable only under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, the position of law clarified in the case of Renusagar Power Company Limited v/s. General Electric Company (supra) and Vijay Karia and others v/s. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL and others (supra), becomes relevant. In the case of Renusagar Power Company Limited v/s. General Electric Company (supra), the Supreme Court held that the expression 'public policy' in Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act pertains to the doctrine of public policy as applied by the Courts in India, thereby indicating that enforc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng him remediless. 55. The Supreme Court, in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmed v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra), held that access to justice is vital for rule of law and that it is a universally recognized right. In the case of Anita Kushwaha v/s. Pushap Sudan (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that access to justice is a valuable right recognized by Courts universally, including in India. In fact, such a right of access to justice is elevated to the status of right to life, under Article 21 of Constitution of India and also right of equality guaranteed under Article 14 thereof. The Supreme Court, in the said judgment, held as follows: "31. Given the fact that pronouncements mentioned above have interpreted and understood the word "life" appearing in Article 21 of the Constitution on a broad spectrum of rights considered incidental and/or integral to the right to life, there is no real reason why access to justice should be considered to be falling outside the class and category of the said rights, which already stands recognised as being a part and parcel of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If "life" implies not only life in the physical sense but a bundle of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his grievances. The principle of comity of Courts is well recognized, but the said principle cannot override the aforesaid valuable right of a litigant to access of justice, particularly when an injunction, as in this case, an anti-suit injunction, is issued by a foreign Court having the effect of interference with or preventing the plaintiff from pursuing the only legal remedy available in the facts and circumstances of the case. If such an injunction of the foreign Court is offensive to the domestic public policy, enforcement of the same can be resisted and the principle of comity of Courts cannot be used as a weapon to leave a litigant completely remediless. Such an oppressive situation for a litigant cannot be countenanced under any circumstances. This Court is of the opinion that in the light of the said position of law recognized by Courts in India, in the present case, the plaintiff has been able to make out a strong prima facie case for issuance of an anti-enforcement temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. 57. The position of law clarified by the Supreme Court, as far back as in the case of Smt. Satya v/s. Shri Teja Singh (supra) in the year 1975, supports t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icularly, under Sections 241 and 242 thereof, a finding could be rendered on the aspect of prima facie case against the plaintiff. For instance, if the body of the petition pertains to disputes that have nothing to do with the SHA, or only a set of papers have been given the title of a petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, to be placed before the NCLT, this Court could reach a conclusion that even a bare look at the petition itself shows that mere filing of the same before the NCLT cannot ipso facto lead to the plaintiff claiming anti-enforcement order against the defendants herein. 61. In other words, this Court, while looking at the petition filed before the NCLT, would not go into the depth of claims and counterclaims made by the parties about the true nature of the disputes of oppression and mismanagement raised therein. At this juncture, the aspect of the petition filed before the NCLT being a 'dressed-up' petition, becomes relevant. This Court is of the opinion that examining whether the petition filed before the NCLT can be said to be a 'dressedup' petition, would necessarily require a detailed exercise to be carried out by this Court to render fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to arbitration. 65. Any exercise involving detailed examination of the petition filed before the NCLT, at the hands of this Court, would be hazardous as it would amount to deciding the question that lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the NCLT itself. After all, a Court or an authority has the jurisdiction to decide the very question as to whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding or not. This is a settled principle of law and reliance placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Bhatia Co-operative Housing Society Limited v/s. D. C. Patel (supra) rendered as far back as in the year 1952, is apposite. The Supreme Court, in the said judgment, categorically held that a Court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction, although as a result of its enquiry, it may turn out that it has no jurisdiction over the proceeding. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, only the NCLT has the jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether it has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition filed by the plaintiff and/ or whether the disputes being contractual in nature, are arbitrable and the parties are to be referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mismanagement. When the aspect of prima facie case is viewed from this angle, the detailed submissions made on behalf of the rival parties on applying principles akin to those governing an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, appear to be inapposite, and therefore, this Court refrains from rendering any detailed findings thereon. 70. In view of the above, the fact that the plaintiff has been able to show that if the anti-suit permanent injunction order granted by the High Court of Singapore is enforced, he will be rendered remediless, is enough to make out a strong prima facie case in his favour. 71. In this backdrop when the contentions raised on behalf of the defendants are considered, it comes to light that they have emphasized on the law pertaining to the disputes of oppression and mismanagement. A major emphasis is placed on trying to demonstrate that the petition filed before the NCLT does not raise genuine disputes of oppression and mismanagement, indicating that the petition is itself a 'dressed-up' petition. In view of the finding rendered hereinabove, that this Court will not cross the line and examine the petition filed before the NCLT in great detail, con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the grievances and disputes raised by the plaintiff are purely contractual in nature, due to which the parties must be referred to arbitration, such detailed arguments would also have to be advanced before the NCLT itself. This Court cannot cross the line and trench upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT in such matters. Hence, questions (ii) to (viii) framed hereinabove in paragraph 27 are answered accordingly. 75. In this context, it becomes relevant as to whether this Court can refer to the judgements and orders passed by the Courts in Singapore in the proceedings initiated by defendant No. 2, leading to the anti-suit permanent injunction order passed against the plaintiff. As noted hereinabove, the principle of comity of Courts has to be respected, but only a limited enquiry can be undertaken by this Court to examine as to whether continuing the effect of such an anti-suit permanent injunction order would offend public policy of India. Findings in this regard have already been rendered hereinabove, but since the learned senior counsel appearing for the rival parties did refer to the judgement of the Court of Appeal at Singapore in great detail, this Court deems it approp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e having taken note of the categorical position in Indian law as manifested in the aforesaid judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Karia Vs. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (supra) that when the subject matter is found to be non-arbitrable under Indian law, the enforcement of an award pertaining to such a subject matter would be against the public policy of India and hence unenforceable under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act. But, this Court is referring to the said aspects of the judgement of the Court of Appeal at Singapore, only for the reason that the learned senior counsel for the rival parties did advance detailed submissions in that regard. 79. It is absolutely clear that while examining as to whether the plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case in his favour, the rival submissions and the entire material on record have been analyzed and considered by this Court independent of any findings that have been rendered by the Courts at Singapore. This Court is applying the wellestablished three-pronged test for considering as to whether temporary injunction, as claimed in the present application, can be granted. The factors that need to be considered while exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an Order of temporary injunction restraining Defendant No. 2 and/or its agents, directors, employees, servants and/or any person claiming through or under it from, in any manner, whether directly or indirectly, (i) enforcing the Anti-Suit Permanent Injunction Order dated 26th October 2021 (Annexure 'P' to the Plaint) passed by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore; and (ii) Appeal Court Order dated 6th January 2023 (Annexure 'P-2' to the Plaint) passed by the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore; (c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an Order of temporary injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and/or their agents, directors, employees, servants and/or any person claiming through or under them from relying on the Anti-Suit Permanent Injunction Order dated 26th October 2021 (Annexure 'P' to the plaint) passed by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore and the Appeal Court Order dated 6th January 2023 (Annexure 'P-2' to the Plaint) passed by the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore when the Plaintiff applies for injunctive reliefs in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
