<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (4) TMI 1923 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302842</link>
    <description>An anti-suit injunction against foreign divorce proceedings is an equitable in personam remedy granted sparingly and in deference to comity of courts. The Court considered Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and the governing requirements of personal jurisdiction, oppression or vexation in the foreign proceedings, and a clear showing that refusal of restraint would cause grave injustice. Although the respondent-wife was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Indian family court, the record did not establish that continuation of the foreign proceedings would defeat justice. The mere use of a matrimonial ground unavailable under the Hindu Marriage Act was insufficient to justify restraint, and the refusal to grant an injunction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2022 21:16:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=682602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1923 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302842</link>
      <description>An anti-suit injunction against foreign divorce proceedings is an equitable in personam remedy granted sparingly and in deference to comity of courts. The Court considered Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and the governing requirements of personal jurisdiction, oppression or vexation in the foreign proceedings, and a clear showing that refusal of restraint would cause grave injustice. Although the respondent-wife was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Indian family court, the record did not establish that continuation of the foreign proceedings would defeat justice. The mere use of a matrimonial ground unavailable under the Hindu Marriage Act was insufficient to justify restraint, and the refusal to grant an injunction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>