Bombay High Court Grants Anti-Enforcement Injunction in Corporate Dispute

In a groundbreaking judgment handed down by Justice Manish Pitale of the Bombay High Court, a significant legal precedent has been set, granting an anti-enforcement injunction in a complex corporate dispute. The judgmenthas far-reaching implications for the field of corporate law.

Justice Pitale's observations in the judgment underscored the importance of the plaintiff's access to justice. He stated, "Access to justice is indeed a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." This observation emphasized the critical role of the court in ensuring that litigants have the opportunity to pursue their claims and grievances.

The case revolved around a plaintiff seeking to restrain the enforcement of an anti-suit permanent injunction order issued by the High Court of Singapore. The plaintiff argued that enforcing this order would leave them without any remedy, particularly before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in India.

Justice Pitale found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a strong prima facie case for the grant of an anti-enforcement temporary injunction. He noted, "The denial of access to the NCLT would render the plaintiff remediless," highlighting the dire consequences of enforcing the foreign court's order.

Furthermore, the court considered the grave and irreparable loss the plaintiff would suffer if the anti-suit permanent injunction order were allowed to stand. The judgment emphasized that the plaintiff would be left with no recourse while the arbitration proceedings in Singapore would continue, with the award potentially being unenforceable in India.

Justice Pitale also took into account the balance of convenience. He concluded that granting the temporary injunction favored the plaintiff, as it would allow them to pursue their remedy before the NCLT. At the same time, the defendants retained the option to invoke Section 45 of the Arbitration Act to seek arbitration.

The judgment extended a previous order, issued on November 22, 2021, which had adjourned an Extraordinary General Meeting (EOGM) in the case for a further eight weeks.

The ruling references several legal precedents, including Tata Consultancy Services Limited Vs. Cyrus Investments Private Limited, Ebrahimi Vs. Westbourne Galleries Limited, Hind Overseas Private Limited Vs. Raghunath Prasad Jhunjhunwalla, Stanley Wootliff Vs. Martin Rushton-Turner, and Best Sellers Retail (India) Private Limited Vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited.

This landmark decision by the Bombay High Court highlights the court's commitment to safeguarding access to justice and ensuring that litigants have the opportunity to pursue their rights, even in the face of complex international disputes.

Date of Decision: 11 September 2023

Anupam Mittal vs People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others     

• Lawyer E- News Android Mobile App
• Latest Legal News

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Anupam-Mittal_Vs_People-Interactive-India-Pvt_11_Sep23_BombHC.pdf"]