Contractual forum selection and anti-suit injunctions: agreed foreign court choice excluded Indian jurisdiction absent exceptional oppression.

A contractual forum-selection clause providing that disputes arising under the licence agreements be submitted to the competent courts of The Hague was treated as an exclusive choice of forum for suits brought by the plaintiff, even though the words "alone" or "exclusively" were absent; the Indian court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. An anti-suit injunction was also refused because the plaintiff failed to show that the foreign proceedings were oppressive, vexatious, or otherwise unjust, and no exceptional circumstance overriding comity and the contractual forum choice was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the jurisdiction clause in the disc patent licence agreements conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at The Hague and excluded the jurisdiction of the Indian court; (ii) whether the plaintiff made out a case for an anti-suit injunction on the grounds of forum non conveniens, vexatious or oppressive foreign proceedings, or the earlier statement recorded before the court.

Issue (i): whether the jurisdiction clause in the disc patent licence agreements conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at The Hague and excluded the jurisdiction of the Indian court.

Analysis: The agreements provided that disputes between the parties arising in connection with the agreements shall be submitted to the competent courts of The Hague, with a limited exception where the defendant was the plaintiff. Reading the clause as a whole, the exception applied only when the defendant chose to sue, while the general rule governed suits by the licensee. The absence of the words "alone", "only" or "exclusively" did not prevent the clause from operating as an ouster clause, because the intention to select The Hague as the court of choice was clear from the language and structure of the clause. The court therefore could not entertain a suit instituted by the licensee contrary to that contractual forum selection.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction clause was treated as conferring exclusive forum choice on The Hague for suits brought by the plaintiff, and the Indian court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff made out a case for an anti-suit injunction on the grounds of forum non conveniens, vexatious or oppressive foreign proceedings, or the earlier statement recorded before the court.

Analysis: An anti-suit injunction is discretionary and requires personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a need to prevent injustice, and due regard to comity. The burden lay on the plaintiff to show that the foreign forum was oppressive, vexatious, or non-convenient. The plaintiff failed to establish these elements, especially in view of the contractual choice of forum. The earlier statement that the defendants would not take "precipitate" action did not assist the plaintiff, because if it covered the foreign proceedings the remedy lay in enforcement or contempt in the earlier suit, and if it did not, it could not found the present relief. No exceptional circumstances such as impossibility of proceeding in the chosen forum, vis major, or force majeure were shown.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to an anti-suit injunction.

Final Conclusion: The application failed because the contractual forum selection had to be respected and no sufficient basis was established to restrain the foreign proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where parties have agreed to submit disputes to a foreign court of choice, that forum must ordinarily be respected, and an anti-suit injunction will not be granted unless exceptional circumstances and a clear case of oppression, vexation, or injustice are proved.

---