Bombay High Court
Anupam Mittal vs People Interactive (India) Private ... on 15 March, 2023
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
14-ial-3579-2023.doc
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.3579 OF 2023
IN
SUIT NO.95 OF 2021
Anupam Mittal ...Applicant /
Plaintiff
Versus
People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants
----------
Mr. Darius Khambata, Senior Counsel, Sharan Jagtiani, Senior
Counsel, Kunal Dwarkadas, Rahul Dwarkadas, Ms. Silpa Nair, Areez
Gazdar, Nutash Kotwal, Ms. Shireen Mistri and Ms. Aishwarya Wagle
i/b. Veritas Legal for the Applicant / Plaintiff.
Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Counsel, Ashish Kamat, Senior Counsel
with Rajendra Barot, Anusha Jacob, Mrudula Dixit and Ms. Richa
Borthakur i/b. AZB & Partners for Defendant No.2.
Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Counsel with Rajendra Barot, Anusha
Jacob, Mrudula Dixit and Ms. Richa Borthakur i/b. AZB & Partners
for Defendant No.3.
Rishika Harish with Siddharth Nunes and Shivani Prasad i/b. TRD
Associates for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J.
DATE : 15 MARCH 2023.
ORDER :
1. By this Interim Application, the Applicant / Original Plaintiff is seeking permission to amend the Plaint in terms of the schedule annexed to the Interim Application. Further, consequential amendments have been sought for in the captioned Suit. 1/10 ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 17:41:06 :::
14-ial-3579-2023.doc
2. The Applicant / Original Plaintiff has filed the captioned Suit against the Defendants for grant of permanent 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 enforcing the Anti Suit Permanent Injunction Order dated 26th October, 2021 passed by High Court of the Republic of Singapore.
3. It is noted that on 15th November, 2021, pursuant to the passing of the Anti Suit Permanent Injunction Order, the Applicant / Original Plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No.64 of 2021 before the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against the Anti Suit Permanent Injunction order without prejudice to his contention that the High Court of Republic of Singapore and / or Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore do not have jurisdiction in the matter.
4. The Appeal filed by the Applicant / Original Plaintiff was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore and which hearing was until 29th June, 2022 and the judgment was reserved. On 6th January, 2023, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore passed an order / judgment dismissing the Appeal and 2/10 ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 17:41:06 ::: 14-ial-3579-2023.doc confirming the Anti Suit Permanent Injunction Order ("Appeal Court Order").
5. The present Interim Application is for bringing on record the Appeal Court Order dated 6th January, 2023 and seeking incidental and / or consequential amendment in relation thereto. The Applicant has further stated that in view of the Anti Suit Permanent Injunction Order which is the subject matter of challenge in the captioned Suit having been confirmed by the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore through the Appeal Court Order, it is imperative that the Appeal Court Order be brought on record before this Court and for which the present amendment is sought for in the Plaint and in the Interim Application filed in the present Suit. This is in order to have complete and effective adjudication of the present Suit.
6. The objection to the proposed amendment being allowed is raised by the Defendants to the Suit. The objection appears to be on the ground that there is a judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore, whereby the Applicant / Plaintiff herein is found guilty of contempt 3/10 ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 17:41:06 ::: 14-ial-3579-2023.doc of Court and a fine has been imposed to be paid within six weeks from the judgment and order dated 31st October, 2022. The fine is payable unless the Applicant / Plaintiff herein purges his contempt within one month from the date of the said judgment and order by inter alia discontinuing the NCLT proceedings and the present Suit and all Interim Applications herein. It is by placing reliance on the said judgment and order of the High Court of Republic of Singapore, the Interim Application for amendment is opposed.
7. Mr. Khambata, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant / Plaintiff has submitted that the Appeal Court order has been passed after the filing of the captioned Suit and which confirms the Anti Suit Permanent Injunction Order of the High Court of Republic of Singapore which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Suit. He has submitted that the High Court of Republic of Singapore in the judgment and order dated 31st October, 2022 at paragraph 151 held that it is not for the Court to comment on the appropriateness of a foreign court granting or not granting an Anti Enforcement Injunction. Further, the Court has considered that whether an Anti Enforcement Injunction is granted or not, is not relevant to the committal proceedings before the Court. 4/10 ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 17:41:06 :::
14-ial-3579-2023.doc
8. Mr. Khambata has further submitted that the finding of contempt by the High Court of Republic of Singapore and the purging the contempt which entails discontinuing the NCLT proceedings and the present Suit and all Interim Applications herein, cannot have a bearing on this Court considering the present Application for amendment. He has submitted that it is well settled including by the order of the Delhi High Court in Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. Vs. Xiaomi Corporation & Ors .1 that where an order is passed by the Court of one sovereign country, without due justification, entrenches on the lawful invocation of remedies known to law, by a litigant in another sovereign country, the Court in the latter sovereign country is duty bound to protect such incursion on its jurisdiction and on the fundamental right of its citizen to seek legal redress. No consideration of comity can militate against grant of relief in such a case. He has submitted that in view of the challenge in the present Suit to the Anti Suit Permanent Injunction Order of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore as being without justification and entrenches on the lawful invocation of remedies by the Applicant herein before the NCLT, in another Sovereign country, viz. India, there can be no restriction on this Court considering the relief sought 1 In Interim Application No.8772 of 2020 in Comm Suit No.295 of 2020 dated 3rd May, 2021.
5/10 ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 17:41:06 :::
14-ial-3579-2023.doc for in the present Interim Application.
9. Mr. Sakhardande, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Defendants has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Celem S.A of FRANCE.2 wherein the Supreme Court has held that there is a presumption that the foreign Court which passed the order is a Court of competent jurisdiction which of course is a rebuttable presumption. The principles of comity of nation demand the Court to respect the order of a foreign Court in that case, the English Court. Even in regard to an interlocutory order. He has submitted that High Court of Republic of Singapore has found the Applicant / Plaintiff herein to be guilty of contempt of Court and in that context has imposed a fine which is payable unless the Applicant / Plaintiff purges the contempt by inter alia discontinuing the present Suit and all Interim Applications herein. He has submitted that though there was an appeal filed from the said judgment and order dated 31st October, 2022 of the High Court of Republic of Singapore and stay was applied for the same was rejected, and thus at present the said judgment and order of the High Court of Republic of Singapore is 2 (2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases 253.
6/10 ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 17:41:06 :::
14-ial-3579-2023.doc final and which prevents the Applicant / Plaintiff herein from continuing that the present Suit and Interim Application filed herein.
10. Mr. Sakhardande has accordingly submitted that this Court cannot proceed with the present Suit by considering the relief sought for in the Interim Application which is for amendment of the Plaint and Interim Application filed in the present Suit.
11. Having considered the submissions, the present Suit challenges the Anti Suit Permanent Injunction Order passed by the High Court of Republic of Singapore. From this order an Appeal preferred by the Applicant / original Plaintiff herein has been rejected by Appeal court Order dated 6th January, 2023. Thus, it is necessary for the Applicant / Plaintiff herein to bring on record the said Appeal Court Order and make necessary averments in relation thereto including raise challenge to the Appeal Court Order.
12. A judgment and order of the High Court of Republic of Singapore dated 31st October, 2022 finds the Applicant / Plaintiff guilty of contempt of Court and imposes a fine which is payable unless the Applicant / Plaintiff herein purges the contempt 7/10 ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 17:41:06 ::: 14-ial-3579-2023.doc by inter alia discontinuing the NCLT proceedings and the present Suit as well as the Interim Applications filed therein.
13. The decision relied upon by Mr. Sakhardande in the case of Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) lays down the well settled principle that comity of nation demand the Court to respect the order of the foreign Court. This is even in regard to an interlocutory order. However, this principle of comity of nations cannot come in the way of this Court considering a challenge to an Anti Suit Injunction Permanent Order passed by the High Court of the Republic in Singapore on the ground that the said order entrenches on the lawful invocation of remedies known to law by the Applicant / Plaintiff herein who is a litigant in another sovereign country viz. India. Further, the present Interim Application is only seeking bringing on record the Appeal Court Order of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore which rejected the challenge to the Anti Suit Permanent Injunction Order by the Applicant / Plaintiff herein.
14. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Interdigital Technology Corporation (Supra), has laid down that where an order is passed by one sovereign country, without due 8/10 ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 17:41:06 ::: 14-ial-3579-2023.doc justification, entrenches on the lawful invocation of remedies known to law by a litigant in another sovereign country, the Court in the latter sovereign country is duty bound to protect such incursion on its jurisdiction and on the fundamental right of its citizen to seek legal redress. This decision is applicable in the present case. It makes no difference that in the case before the Delhi High Court, it was the Wuhan Court and in the present case, it is the High Court of the Republic of Singapore. Further, it will make no difference that, an application for stay in the Appeal preferred by the Applicant / Plaintiff herein from the said judgment and order of the High Court of Republic of Singapore dated 31st October, 2022 was rejected. This will not impinge on this Court considering the present Interim Application for amendment filed in the present Suit.
15. Accordingly, the relief sought for in the Interim Application is granted. Hence, the following order:-
(i) The Applicant / Original Plaintiff is permitted to amend the Plaint in terms of the schedule annexed to the Interim Application.9/10 ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 17:41:06 :::
14-ial-3579-2023.doc
(ii) Consequential amendment to the Interim Application in the captioned Suit are allowed.
(iii) Amendment shall be carried out by the Applicant / Plaintiff within a period of two weeks from the date of this Order.
(iv) Re-verification is dispensed with.
(v) Interim Application is accordingly disposed of.
(vi) The amended Interim Application shall be served on the Defendants simultaneously upon amendment being carried out. The Defendant shall file their Affidavit in Reply to the amended Interim Application within a period of two weeks from service.
16. Place the Interim Application No.1010 of 2021 on 24th April, 2023 at 2.30 p.m. [R.I. CHAGLA J.] 10/10 ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 17:41:06 :::