Anti-Suit Injunctions in India

Anti-suit injunctions refer to Court orders that prohibit a defendant from initiating or continuing any parallel litigation in another jurisdiction or jurisdictions. Such orders may be passed to direct defendants to terminate any litigation they have initiated, direct them not to initiate any other litigation, or both.

Therefore, any order that prohibits a party from filing another case or instructs them to terminate any ongoing proceeding is known as an anti-suit injunction.

First Judgements on Anti-Suit Injunctions

The first judgement on anti-suit injunctions dates to the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Western Co. of North America. The judgement passed in this case is considered a vital decision as it acknowledges instances when allowing proceedings in a foreign court would be ‘oppressive’.

During this case, the Supreme Court stated that it would grant anti-suit injunctions in cases where:

• It is mandatory or expedient to do so.
• When the ends of justice demand so.
• The High Court had undoubted jurisdiction to grant such an injunction.
• It would be unfair to refuse the restraining order because action in the foreign court would be oppressive.

The next relevant judgement of the Supreme Court with respect to this point was in the case of British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. vs. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries, where it laid down the choice of law rule to decide which Court would have jurisdiction. The rule laid down is as follows:

• The jurisdiction clause may provide for submission to the Courts of a specific country or to a Court identified by a formula.
• It shall be up to interpretation whether a jurisdiction clause is exclusive or non-exclusive or if the claim, which is the subject matter of the action, falls within its terms.
• In case no express choice is available, the law of the country chosen will usually, but not always, be considered the proper law.

Principles of Anti-Suit Injunction

The Supreme Court of India passed a landmark judgement in the case of Modi Entertainment Network vs. WSG Cricket Pte. Ltd., where the principles for anti-suit injunctions were first discussed and defined in India. It stated that a Court in India has the power and right to issue anti-suit injunctions to parties that fall under its jurisdiction because the Indian legal system makes them ‘Courts of equity’ that exercise jurisdiction in personam.

It further added that this power will be exercised sparingly because of the principle of comity due to which an anti-suit injunction in effect hinders the exercise of jurisdiction.

While hearing this case, the Court laid down the following principles for Courts to determine when to grant an anti-suit injunction:

• While determining whether to grant an anti-suit injunction, the Court must be convinced that the defendant consents to the jurisdiction of the Court. They must also be certain about whether declining the injunction will defeat the ends of justice and result in injustice being preserved. Furthermore, the Court must also keep the principle for comity in mind.
• In cases where more than one forum is available, the Court shall examine and decide on an apt forum depending on the parties’ convenience and may grant an anti-suit injunction against oppressive proceedings.
• In cases where a Court’s jurisdiction is invoked as a result of the jurisdiction clause of the contract, provisions related to exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction of the court become vital relevant factors.
• A Court will not grant an anti-suit injunction against a defendant if the parties had consented to submit to the jurisdiction of a Court for the commencement or continuance of proceedings, except in certain exceptional cases that have ample adequate reasons. This shall be done with a perspective to prevent injustice in instances such as those which allow a party to be relieved of the responsibilities of a contract or in situations where since the date of the contract, the circumstances or subsequent events have made it difficult for the party requesting injunction to prosecute the case in the Court of their choice because the essence of that Court does not exist due to some vis major or force majeure and other similar reasons.
• No anti-suit injunctions shall be granted in cases where concerned parties, under a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, consented to approach a neutral foreign forum and be governed under its laws to resolve their disputes related to the contract. They will not grant any anti-suit injunction as it shall be understood that the parties thought about their convenience and other relevant factors before submitting themselves to be governed under the exclusive jurisdiction of a Court – which cannot be deemed as alternative forum.
• Parties to a contract that contains jurisdiction clause cannot be stopped from approaching the parties’ Court of choice as it would be similar breach of contract. However, when one of the parties of the contract approaches the Court, where exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction has been created, the proceedings shall neither be deemed as vexation or oppressive nor be considered as forum non conveniens.

The responsibility to prove the forum of choice to be a ‘forum non conveniens’ or the proceedings to be oppressive/vexatious shall lie with the party contending it.

The Supreme Court, in another judgement related to Dinesh Singh Thakur vs. Sonal Thakur, held that anti-suit injunctions may be granted if continuation of proceedings can be unfair and serve injustice to any party, preserves injustice or defeats the ends of justice.

The two cases mentioned above established the position of anti-suit injunctions in India. The principles laid down in Modi Entertainment Network vs. WSG Cricket Pte. Ltd. are now laws that govern and act as guidelines for anti-suit injunction cases.
In the latest set of judgements, the Delhi High Court explained the different types of injunctions in disputes with respect to apt forums:

• Anti-suit Injunctions: where the Court restricts a party from continuing with the main suit that is pending before a foreign court.
• Anti-anti-suit Injunctions: where the Court restricts a party from proceeding with the anti-suit injunction filed before a foreign court with the aim of stopping the ‘local’ proceedings.
• Anti-enforcement Injunctions: where the Court bars one party from enforcing any order passed by a foreign court on the other party/parties.

Section 41 of Special Relief Act, 1963

Section 41 of the Special Relief Act, 1963 states that an injunction cannot be granted for any of the following:

• To restrain an individual from prosecuting a case pending at the institution of the suit for which the injunction has been sought, unless this restraint is needed to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings.
• To restrain an individual from commencing or continuing any proceeding in a Court that is not subordinate to the Court where the injunction is being sought.
• To restrain an individual from applying to a legislative body.
• To restrain any individual commencing or continuing any criminal case.
• To prevent any potential breach of contract.
• To prevent, on grounds of nuisance, any action that is not reasonably confirmed to be a nuisance.
• To prevent a continuing breach of contract in a case where the plaintiff has acquiesced.
• When equally effective resolutions can be obtained via other usual modes of proceeding, except in the case of a breach of trust.
• When the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been in a way that deems them ineligible to seek the assistance of the Court.
• When there is no personal interest of the plaintiff in the case.

Conclusion

The Courts in India are not just Courts of law but also Courts of equity. This makes it imperative for them to practice issuing anti-suit injunctions on the grounds of equity and to prevent any injustice. Once a Court deems a request for anti-suit injunction valid, i.e., it does not fall under any ineligibility standards of Section 41 of the Special Relief Act, 9163, it shall issue the relevant injunction to ensure justice is preserved.


We can address your concerns related to anti-suit injunctions in India. You can get in touch with us by submitting your query below.