The Delhi High Court has refused to grant an anti-suit injunction in favour of IndiaBulls against the proceedings filed against it in a Canadian court..The Court held that anti-suit injunctions, being discretionary remedies, would also depend on the conduct of parties. A Court cannot, under the garb of an anti-suit injunction, seek to micromanage proceedings pending in a foreign court, it added..The judgment was passed by a single Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh in a plea by Indiabulls for an anti-suit injunction against proceedings initiated by Veritas Investment before a court in Canada. The Canadian proceedings pertained to Veritas’s plea for damages for libel, conspiracy and economic harm..Indiabulls pleaded that the cause of the dispute, i.e. publication of a report by Veritas analysing the former’s businesses, was intricately connected with India as the report was published and available in India. It claimed that the Canadian suit was filed as a counterblast to certain criminal complaints filed by Indiabulls against Veritas after the report was published..It was further apprehended that the two judicial proceedings arose out of the same cause of action and might lead to contradictory judgments. Indiabulls also contended that the Canadian suit was oppressive and vexatious, and initiated with an intention to harass the company..Veritas, on the other hand, argued that the plea was infructuous as Indiabulls had already appeared in the Canadian suit and even filed a motion for its dismissal. Thus, the anti-suit injunction should not liable to be granted due to Indiabulls’ active and voluntary participation in the Canadian suit..Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket PTE Ltd, the High Court recorded the following as conditions for grant of an anti-suit injunction:.That the Defendant should be amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the CourtThat the Court has to examine whether the proceedings, against which injunction is sought, are vexatious and oppressiveIf the forum where the proceedings are pending, are forum non conveniens for the party seeking anti-suit injunctionIf the grant of injunction would meet the ends of justiceThe principle of Comity of Courts has to be borne in mindA person seeking the injunction has the burden of proving the sameThe power of anti-suit injunctions is to be exercised sparingly.Indiabulls Complaint against Veritas.While analyzing whether Veritas was amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the Court, it was observed that the cause of action for filing of the plea seeking anti-suit injunction was the filing of the Canadian suit and not the publication of the report. It further added that the developments that took place post the publication of the report did not take place in Delhi..“Immediately upon the publication of the reports, the first criminal complaint was filed in Gurugram and thereafter in Mumbai. Thus, nothing was pending in Delhi. None of the FIRs were registered in Delhi. No prior suit was pending in Delhi between the same parties. None of the Defendants reside in Delhi. None of the Defendants carry on business in Delhi, though the reports may be circulated in Delhi as much as they are in other parts of the world, where internet access is available.”.It thus concluded that while there may be a cause of action for Indiabulls to seek damages for defamation in Delhi, there is no cause of action for an injunction restraining proceedings in a Canadian Court. The Court further noted that immediately after the filing the anti-injunction suit, Indiabulls moved the Van Breda motion before the Canadian Court seeking dismissal of the Canadian proceedings. As a result, the Canadian Court would consider issues of the convenience of the parties, expenses of the parties, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, avoiding conflicting decisions etc., the Court opined..“Various presumptive connecting factors, new presumptive connecting factors and the doctrine of forum non-conveniens would also be considered…the Court would be considering Indiabulls’ domicile, whether Indiabulls is carrying on its business in Canada and whether a tort was committed in Canada. Indiabulls would be rebutting Veritas’s submissions that there exist presumptive connecting factors to Canada. .The Canadian Court would also be considering the arguments of Indiabulls that the Superior Court of Justice at Ontario is a forum non-conveniens. Upon consideration of these factors, the Canadian Court would be adjudicating the Van Breda motion. Can this Court, then, pre-judge the said issue? Obviously it cannot.”.It thus concluded that to hold that the Canadian court is a forum non conveniens for Indiabulls would be pre-judging the issues that squarely arise in the Van Breda motion which has been filed by Indiabulls in the Canadian court. To say that Veritas is permitted to file pleadings and depose its witnesses qua the Van Breda motion only and not beyond, would not be just and reasonable and would also be violative of the principle of freedom of seeking adjudication, Justice Singh held..“It would, in effect, mean that this Court believes that it would be appropriate to conduct a stage-by-stage supervision of the Canadian proceedings. This would be contrary to the principles of Comity of Courts, which forms the fulcrum of the test for grant of an anti-suit injunction. The Canadian Court would have the power to adjudicate Indiabulls’ motion on jurisdiction, in an unbridled manner.”.It further held that the proceedings in Canada cannot be called vexatious or oppressive..“Indiabulls is a corporate entity having large scale businesses. It is not an individual litigant, for whom expenses of trial would be a relevant consideration. It has already engaged counsels, moved a motion for dismissal of the Canadian suit and adduced testimony of its witnesses. It is capable of defending itself in the Canadian suit.”.The Court also stated that the apprehension of contradictory judgments is also unfounded..The Court further held that since anti-suit injunctions are nothing but a species of injunctions, and are discretionary remedies, the conduct of parties would have an enormous bearing..“..the conduct of Indiabulls, in causing harassment to the authors of the report by filing criminal complaints against them, by getting one of them arrested, issuing a press release making allegations against Veritas etc. was clearly not called for. While the remedies of Indiabulls against any report, which according to it may have contained incorrect or misleading facts, were always available to them, to threaten criminal action for publication of a research report was an extreme step…....Such a reaction in the face of publications and articles written by researchers could have a “chilling effect” on publishing. Moreover, such litigation could also result in genuine researchers being dissuaded from writing articles which would not be in the interest of the investing public.”.The conduct of Indiabulls did not entitle it to the discretionary relief of injunction, the Court opined. Thus, it is held that the case was not a fit case for grant of anti-suit injunction, in view of the settled principles of law..Indiabulls was represented by Senior Advocate Abhinav Vashisht with Advocates Mamta Tiwari, Charu Ambwani, Mumtaz Bhalla, Aayush Malhotra and Abhilasha Vij..Veritas was represented by Advocates Amit Dube and Rajul Shrivastava..Read the judgment:.Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant an anti-suit injunction in favour of IndiaBulls against the proceedings filed against it in a Canadian court..The Court held that anti-suit injunctions, being discretionary remedies, would also depend on the conduct of parties. A Court cannot, under the garb of an anti-suit injunction, seek to micromanage proceedings pending in a foreign court, it added..The judgment was passed by a single Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh in a plea by Indiabulls for an anti-suit injunction against proceedings initiated by Veritas Investment before a court in Canada. The Canadian proceedings pertained to Veritas’s plea for damages for libel, conspiracy and economic harm..Indiabulls pleaded that the cause of the dispute, i.e. publication of a report by Veritas analysing the former’s businesses, was intricately connected with India as the report was published and available in India. It claimed that the Canadian suit was filed as a counterblast to certain criminal complaints filed by Indiabulls against Veritas after the report was published..It was further apprehended that the two judicial proceedings arose out of the same cause of action and might lead to contradictory judgments. Indiabulls also contended that the Canadian suit was oppressive and vexatious, and initiated with an intention to harass the company..Veritas, on the other hand, argued that the plea was infructuous as Indiabulls had already appeared in the Canadian suit and even filed a motion for its dismissal. Thus, the anti-suit injunction should not liable to be granted due to Indiabulls’ active and voluntary participation in the Canadian suit..Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket PTE Ltd, the High Court recorded the following as conditions for grant of an anti-suit injunction:.That the Defendant should be amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the CourtThat the Court has to examine whether the proceedings, against which injunction is sought, are vexatious and oppressiveIf the forum where the proceedings are pending, are forum non conveniens for the party seeking anti-suit injunctionIf the grant of injunction would meet the ends of justiceThe principle of Comity of Courts has to be borne in mindA person seeking the injunction has the burden of proving the sameThe power of anti-suit injunctions is to be exercised sparingly.Indiabulls Complaint against Veritas.While analyzing whether Veritas was amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the Court, it was observed that the cause of action for filing of the plea seeking anti-suit injunction was the filing of the Canadian suit and not the publication of the report. It further added that the developments that took place post the publication of the report did not take place in Delhi..“Immediately upon the publication of the reports, the first criminal complaint was filed in Gurugram and thereafter in Mumbai. Thus, nothing was pending in Delhi. None of the FIRs were registered in Delhi. No prior suit was pending in Delhi between the same parties. None of the Defendants reside in Delhi. None of the Defendants carry on business in Delhi, though the reports may be circulated in Delhi as much as they are in other parts of the world, where internet access is available.”.It thus concluded that while there may be a cause of action for Indiabulls to seek damages for defamation in Delhi, there is no cause of action for an injunction restraining proceedings in a Canadian Court. The Court further noted that immediately after the filing the anti-injunction suit, Indiabulls moved the Van Breda motion before the Canadian Court seeking dismissal of the Canadian proceedings. As a result, the Canadian Court would consider issues of the convenience of the parties, expenses of the parties, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, avoiding conflicting decisions etc., the Court opined..“Various presumptive connecting factors, new presumptive connecting factors and the doctrine of forum non-conveniens would also be considered…the Court would be considering Indiabulls’ domicile, whether Indiabulls is carrying on its business in Canada and whether a tort was committed in Canada. Indiabulls would be rebutting Veritas’s submissions that there exist presumptive connecting factors to Canada. .The Canadian Court would also be considering the arguments of Indiabulls that the Superior Court of Justice at Ontario is a forum non-conveniens. Upon consideration of these factors, the Canadian Court would be adjudicating the Van Breda motion. Can this Court, then, pre-judge the said issue? Obviously it cannot.”.It thus concluded that to hold that the Canadian court is a forum non conveniens for Indiabulls would be pre-judging the issues that squarely arise in the Van Breda motion which has been filed by Indiabulls in the Canadian court. To say that Veritas is permitted to file pleadings and depose its witnesses qua the Van Breda motion only and not beyond, would not be just and reasonable and would also be violative of the principle of freedom of seeking adjudication, Justice Singh held..“It would, in effect, mean that this Court believes that it would be appropriate to conduct a stage-by-stage supervision of the Canadian proceedings. This would be contrary to the principles of Comity of Courts, which forms the fulcrum of the test for grant of an anti-suit injunction. The Canadian Court would have the power to adjudicate Indiabulls’ motion on jurisdiction, in an unbridled manner.”.It further held that the proceedings in Canada cannot be called vexatious or oppressive..“Indiabulls is a corporate entity having large scale businesses. It is not an individual litigant, for whom expenses of trial would be a relevant consideration. It has already engaged counsels, moved a motion for dismissal of the Canadian suit and adduced testimony of its witnesses. It is capable of defending itself in the Canadian suit.”.The Court also stated that the apprehension of contradictory judgments is also unfounded..The Court further held that since anti-suit injunctions are nothing but a species of injunctions, and are discretionary remedies, the conduct of parties would have an enormous bearing..“..the conduct of Indiabulls, in causing harassment to the authors of the report by filing criminal complaints against them, by getting one of them arrested, issuing a press release making allegations against Veritas etc. was clearly not called for. While the remedies of Indiabulls against any report, which according to it may have contained incorrect or misleading facts, were always available to them, to threaten criminal action for publication of a research report was an extreme step…....Such a reaction in the face of publications and articles written by researchers could have a “chilling effect” on publishing. Moreover, such litigation could also result in genuine researchers being dissuaded from writing articles which would not be in the interest of the investing public.”.The conduct of Indiabulls did not entitle it to the discretionary relief of injunction, the Court opined. Thus, it is held that the case was not a fit case for grant of anti-suit injunction, in view of the settled principles of law..Indiabulls was represented by Senior Advocate Abhinav Vashisht with Advocates Mamta Tiwari, Charu Ambwani, Mumtaz Bhalla, Aayush Malhotra and Abhilasha Vij..Veritas was represented by Advocates Amit Dube and Rajul Shrivastava..Read the judgment:.Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
