Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[g]The learned Single Judge has not considered whether the essential requirements are satisfied by the plaintiff for grant of anti suit injunction.
(13)Per contra, Dr.Subramanian Swamy, the 1st respondent/plaintiff in CS.No.703/2013 during his arguments and in his written submissions, reiterated the following points:-
[i]The Press Conference was held at New Delhi and the 1st respondent/plaintiff is residing in Chennai and New Delhi and the parent company is having its registered office at Chennai. No cause of action has arisen in Singapore by reason of access of defamatory article through internet by the appellant company at Singapore. He relied on a judgment of Delhi High Court in Banyan Tree Holding Private Limited Vs. A.Murali Krishna Reddy and Another in CS [OS] No.894/2008 dated 23.11.2009, wherein the Delhi High Court has held that mere accessibility of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis OSA.Nos.229 & 230/2014 defendants’ website in New Delhi would not enable the High Court to exercise jurisdiction.
''We have heard Dr.Subramanian Swamy, who has appeared in person and Dr.A.M.Singhvi and Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocates appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and carefully perused the record. We have also gone through the judgments in Attorney General Vs. Butterworth and Others 1962 [3] AER 73 and Pritam Pal Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar 1993 [Suppl.] 1 SCC 529 relied upon by Dr.Subramanian Swamy.