What the Supreme Court said about grant of Anti-Suit Injunction [Read judgment]

Anti-suit injunctions should be granted sparingly and not as a matter of routine, the Supreme Court held in a petition seeking injunction of divorce proceedings in a USA court..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices RK Agrawal and R Banumathi in an appeal against a verdict of Punjab & Haryana High Court..Senior Counsel Indu Malhotra appeared for the appellant-husband while Senior Conusel V Giri represented the respondent-wife..The parties to the case are permanent citizens of USA. The case has its genesis in two divorce petitions, the first one filed by husband against the respondent-wife at the Family Court, Gurgaon which is pending adjudication before the Court and the second filed by the wife in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, USA..When the wife filed for divorce in USA, the husband filed a petition before the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act for permanent injunction and declaration to restrain the wife from pursuing the petition for divorce before the Court in USA..The District Judge initially allowed his petition and granted ad-interim injunction. Aggrieved, the wife filed an application for vacation and modification of the order which was allowed by the District Judge who vacated the injunction order..The husband then moved the High Court which dismissed the appeal prompting him to approach the Supreme Court..The question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant-husband is entitled to the decree of anti-suit injunction against the respondent-wife?.The Court first gave a brief elucidation of anti-suit injunctions..“Anti-Suit Injunctions are meant to restrain a party to a suit/proceeding from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court. Simply put, an anti-suit injunction is a judicial order restraining one party from prosecuting a case in another court outside its jurisdiction.”.The principles governing grant of injunction are common to that of granting anti-suit injunction. The cases of injunction are basically governed by the doctrine of equity, the Court said..It then held that courts should be very cautious and careful before passing orders granting anti-suit injunctions and it should be granted sparingly and not as a matter of routine..“It is a well-settled law that the courts in India have power to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, in an appropriate case. However, before passing the order of anti-suit injunction, courts should be very cautious and careful, and it should be granted sparingly and not as a matter of routine as such orders involve a court impinging on the jurisdiction of another court, which is not entertained very easily specially when the it restrains the parties from instituting or continuing a case in a foreign court.”.Taking note of the facts in the present case, the Court held that no grave injustice will be suffered by the husband if proceedings are allowed to be continued in the Circuit Court, Florida USA..“There is no dispute to the fact that both the parties are permanent citizens of U.S. Undisputedly, the Circuit Court, Florida, USA is also having the concurrent jurisdiction in the given case. The contention that the appellant-husband will suffer grave injustice if the proceedings are allowed to be continued in the Circuit Court, Florida USA doesn’t stand to the ground as the appellant himself has been residing there after 2007 and the proceedings for grant of anti-suit injunction were initiated by him in India through another person by empowering him through a power of attorney to file and pursue the disputed litigation on his behalf. Further, there is nothing brought on record to show how the appellant-husband would suffer grave injustice if the injunction restraining the respondent-wife from pursuing the divorce petition in Florida, is not granted.”.It, therefore, dismissed the appeal..Read the judgment below.