In light of the recent judgment in Honasa Consumer Ltd. v. RSM General Trading LLC [O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 214/2024] (“Honasa ruling”) by the Delhi High Court, the evolving jurisprudence on anti-enforcement injunctions in India has taken a significant turn. This decision, which centered around a dispute between Honasa Consumer Limited and RSM General Trading LLC, underscores the importance of upholding arbitration agreements and the jurisdictional clauses embedded within contracts. The ruling serves as a reminder of the Indian judiciary's commitment to enforce the contractual bargains of parties, particularly in international commercial disputes.
The dispute in the Honasa ruling arose from an Authorized Distributorship Agreement where Honasa Consumer Ltd. granted RSM General Trading LLC the rights to distribute its products in the Middle East and Africa. Crucially, the agreement specified that any disputes would be settled through arbitration in New Delhi, and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts at New Delhi, underscoring the parties’ preference for Indian jurisdiction and legal procedures.
The Honasa ruling is pivotal in demonstrating the Indian judiciary’s commitment to enforcing jurisdictional and arbitration agreements. By issuing an anti-enforcement injunction, the Delhi High Court effectively blocked the enforcement of a Dubai court ruling that had been obtained in contravention of the agreed arbitration and jurisdiction clause. This decision is a clear affirmation of the principle that courts will uphold the parties' autonomy in selecting their dispute resolution forum, a cornerstone of international commercial law.
India's arbitration regime, primarily governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), places a strong emphasis on respecting the parties' autonomy in choosing the forum and the law governing their disputes. The Act's pro-arbitration stance is evident in its provisions that minimize judicial interference, ensuring that arbitration agreements are honoured and enforced.
In this case, the Delhi High Court was tasked with addressing the issue of anti-enforcement injunctions—an injunction that prevents the enforcement of a foreign judgment. The court's decision highlights the delicate balance between respecting the jurisdiction of foreign courts and upholding the parties' agreement to arbitrate in India. This balance is crucial, particularly in light of the globalization of trade and commerce, where businesses often operate across multiple jurisdictions.
In this case, the respondent failed to provide any justification for petitioning the Dubai Court, other than an intent to jeopardize the right to legal remedies as envisioned in the agreement between the parties. The Court found the entire enterprise of starting litigation in Dubai to be flawed from the outset, and emphasized that allowing such actions would undermine the sanctity of commercial contracts and render the rights and liabilities outlined in them meaningless. The Court further noted that no principle of comity of courts should prevent judicial redressal of the damage caused by such misadventures. While doing so, the court opined that the scope of Section 9 of the Act is wide enough to grant such injunctions which would not only preserve the “subject matter of the arbitration” but the “arbitration” itself.
The doctrine of comity of courts, while significant, only demands circumspection when examining a plea for an anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunction. Jurisprudentially, the principle of comity is not a barrier to granting such injunctions when justified by the facts of a case. In the authoritative decision of the Modi Entertainment Network v WSG Cricket PTE (2003) 4 SCC 341, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of anti-suit injunctions and reiterated that Indian courts, like those in England, are courts of both law and equity. The principles governing the grant of an injunction—an equitable relief—also apply to the grant of anti-suit injunctions. The court noted that while courts in India possess the power to issue anti-suit injunctions against a party within their personal jurisdiction, they must exercise this power sparingly, respecting the rule of comity, since such an injunction, though directed at a person, effectively interferes with the jurisdiction of another court.
The concept of anti-enforcement injunctions is not unique to India. In the United Kingdom, courts have historically been cautious in granting such injunctions, recognizing the need to respect the sovereignty of foreign courts while also protecting the contractual rights of parties. In AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013], the UK Supreme Court held that the English courts could issue an anti-enforcement injunction to protect an arbitration agreement, even if no arbitration had yet commenced. This approach mirrors the Indian courts' efforts to preserve the sanctity of arbitration clauses.
Similarly, in the United States, anti-enforcement injunctions have been granted in limited circumstances. The US courts typically follow the principle of comity, where they respect the decisions of foreign courts unless the foreign judgment is found to be repugnant to US public policy. However, courts have not shied away from issuing anti-enforcement injunctions when necessary to protect the parties' contractual rights.
In India, the trend in addressing anti-enforcement injunctions reflects a comprehensive understanding of both domestic and international legal principles. Following a thorough analysis of law in India and foreign jurisdictions, in Interdigital Technology Corporation v Xiaomi Corporation 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2424 the courts have recognized that while comity of courts is a significant concept, it is not an absolute barrier to granting anti-enforcement injunctions. The courts have emphasized that if a foreign proceeding or order is oppressive or offensive to domestic public policy or customary international law, considerations of comity carry less weight. This approach mirrors the pragmatic stance seen in other jurisdictions and highlights the evolving nature of legal jurisprudence in India regarding the protection of arbitration agreements and contractual rights.
The Delhi High Court's decision emphasizes the need for certainty in jurisdiction clauses. Jurisdiction clauses are a vital component of international contracts, providing parties with clarity and predictability regarding the forum for dispute resolution. When parties agree to a specific jurisdiction, they do so to avoid the uncertainty and potential for conflicting judgments that can arise from litigating in multiple jurisdictions.
The enforcement of jurisdiction clauses is essential for maintaining the integrity of international commercial agreements. If courts allow parties to bypass their contractual obligations by seeking relief in foreign courts, it undermines the very purpose of such clauses. The Delhi High Court's decision sends a strong message that parties cannot evade their contractual commitments, and that the courts will step in to protect the parties' choice of forum.
India's judiciary has shown a growing willingness to uphold arbitration agreements and jurisdiction clauses, in line with global trends. This is particularly important as India positions itself as a hub for international arbitration. The court's decision in this case reinforces India's pro-arbitration stance and provides reassurance to foreign investors that their contractual rights will be protected in Indian courts.
However, the challenge remains in ensuring that Indian courts continue to adopt a consistent approach. While the Delhi High Court's ruling is a step in the right direction, it is crucial that lower courts follow suit and resist the temptation to intervene in disputes that have been contractually agreed to be resolved elsewhere. Judicial restraint is key to fostering a favourable environment for international arbitration in India.
The Delhi High Court's judgment in the Honasa ruling serves as a landmark decision in the realm of anti-enforcement injunctions. It highlights the importance of enforcing contractual bargains, particularly in relation to jurisdiction clauses, and underscores the Indian judiciary's commitment to upholding the sanctity of arbitration agreements. As India continues to grow as a global commercial hub, it is essential that the courts maintain a consistent approach in supporting arbitration and respecting the parties' choice of jurisdiction.
This judgment also offers valuable lessons for other jurisdictions. The need to balance respect for foreign judgments with the enforcement of contractual rights is a challenge faced by courts worldwide. As the Indian experience demonstrates, a strong commitment to upholding arbitration agreements and jurisdiction clauses is vital for ensuring the smooth functioning of international commerce.
About the author: Saurabh Seth is a practicing advocate and heads Chambers of Saurabh Seth.
The author would like to acknowledge the research and inputs from Sumeera Seth, Neelam Deol and Abhiroop Rathore, Counsel at Chambers of Saurabh Seth.
If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.