TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies anti-suit injunction, extends interim order, emphasizes comity principle.</h1> <h3>Shree Precoated Steels Limited Versus Macsteel International Far East Ltd. and Anr.</h3> The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for an anti-suit injunction and rejected Defendant No. 1's motion for a stay of the suit. The ad interim order ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the English Court.2. Formation and existence of contracts.3. Anti-suit injunction and anti-anti-suit injunction.4. Alleged contempt by Defendant No. 1.5. Issue estoppel and stay of the suit.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the English Court:The plaintiff sought a declaration that no contract existed between itself and Defendant No. 1 and an injunction to restrain Defendant No. 1 from proceeding with English court proceedings. Defendant No. 1 invoked an English non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, whose receipt was denied by the plaintiff. The English Court granted permission for service out of jurisdiction, which was contested by the plaintiff but dismissed, with the English Court holding that Defendant No. 1 had a 'good arguable case.'2. Formation and Existence of Contracts:The plaintiff contended that no contracts were concluded as the terms and conditions, including the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, were never received. Defendant No. 1 argued that the contracts were formed based on order confirmations and subsequent sales contracts. The court noted that the amendments proposed by the plaintiff to the sales contracts were material and essential, and the lack of response from Defendant No. 1 indicated no concluded contract. The court found that the disputes included factual issues about the existence of the contracts.3. Anti-suit Injunction and Anti-anti-suit Injunction:The court granted an ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from proceeding in the English Court. Defendant No. 1 sought to discharge this order and stay the suit in India. The court noted the principle of comity and the reluctance to grant anti-suit injunctions unless necessary to prevent injustice. The court found that the plaintiff had a strong arguable case and that the matter should proceed in both jurisdictions until a final decision was reached.4. Alleged Contempt by Defendant No. 1:Defendant No. 1 was found to have acted in contempt by seeking an extension of the English anti-suit injunction without notice to the plaintiff, despite being aware of the Indian court's ad interim order. The court reserved the plaintiff's right to pursue appropriate proceedings regarding this contempt.5. Issue Estoppel and Stay of the Suit:Defendant No. 1 argued that the suit should be stayed based on the principle of issue estoppel, citing the English Court's decision on jurisdiction. The court rejected this, noting that the English Court's decision was not final and conclusive but provisional. The court also dismissed the argument that the suit was vexatious or an abuse of process, finding that the plaintiff had a legitimate case.Conclusion:The court dismissed the plaintiff's Notice of Motion for an anti-suit injunction and rejected Defendant No. 1's Notice of Motion for a stay of the suit. The ad interim order dated 18th October 2006 was extended until 21st January 2008. The court emphasized the principle of comity and the need for both proceedings to continue until a final decision was reached.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
