TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the plaintiff is seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants from enforcing an anti-suit permanent injunction order passed by the High Court of Singapore. By the said order, the High Court of Singapore has restrained the plaintiff from proceeding with his petition filed against the defendants before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, raising disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement. In that context, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the NCLT is the only appropriate and competent forum to decide the disputes and grievances raised by the plaintiff, pertaining to oppression and mismanagement against the defendants. 2. The plaintiff has filed the instant interim application in the suit, seeking interim reliefs in aid of the final reliefs sought in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that since disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement under Indian law are non-arbitrable, it would be futile for him to raise the same in an arbitration proceeding initiated by defendant No. 2 at Singapore, particularly because an award passed in pursuance of such arbitral proceeding would not be enforceable in India. It is claimed that, in this ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able to offer the buy-back price. 5. On 05.02.2021, 1000 shares of defendant No. 1 company were transferred by defendant No. 4 to defendant No. 5, who had already exited from defendant No. 1 company in the year 2014. On 24.02.2021, defendant No. 2 made a requisition along with defendant Nos. 4 and 5 as shareholders of defendant No. 1 company to convene an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting (EOGM). The EOGM was to be convened for appointing nominee of defendant No. 2 on the board; as also to appoint one or more non-executive directors on the board; to appoint defendant No. 4 as a managing director of defendant No. 1 company and defendant No. 5 as the founder director on the board. The plaintiff claims that all these actions gave rise to the cause of action for him to claim oppression and mismanagement, particularly in the backdrop that the plaintiff had been the managing director of defendant No. 1 company for more than 15 years. 6. In this backdrop, on 03.03.2021, the plaintiff filed a petition before the NCLT, Mumbai, alleging oppression and mismanagement under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The plaintiff alleged that various acts of defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., a statement made on behalf of the plaintiff was recorded that he would move the High Court of Singapore for vacating / modifying the ex-parte order. 10. Consequently, on 31.03.2021, the plaintiff filed an application before the High Court of Singapore for vacating the ex-parte anti-suit temporary injunction order, without prejudice to his contention that the High Court of Singapore did not have jurisdiction in the matter. 11. On 01.04.2021, in the present application, this Court recorded a statement made on behalf of defendant No. 2 that the EOGM would stand adjourned to 22.04.2021. The aforesaid statement continued from time to time and on 22.11.2021, this Court passed an ad-interim order directing defendant No. 2 to adjourn the EOGM until the present application was heard and decided. 12. During the pendency of the present application and the aforesaid application filed by the plaintiff before the High Court of Singapore, wherein expert evidence on Indian Law was led by the parties, several emails were exchanged. According to the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 continued with their oppressive actions, jeopardizing the valuation process as also the process of audit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w the petition filed before the NCLT. Such leave to appeal was granted on 18.03.2022 by the High Court of Singapore. On 21.03.2022, defendant No. 2 filed summons in the High Court of Singapore for the plaintiff to be committed to prison or fine being imposed upon the plaintiff for contempt of court in the light of non-compliance with the anti-suit permanent injunction order. The plaintiff brought the aforesaid facts to the notice of this Court by filing an additional affidavit. 18. In the meanwhile, defendant No. 2 invoked the arbitration agreement contained in the SHA and an arbitral tribunal was constituted under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce for considering the claims raised by defendant No. 2 against the plaintiff as regards alleged breach of various clauses of the SHA. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the pleadings in the said proceedings have been completed and the final hearing of the same is scheduled in the third week of September, 2023. 19. In the backdrop of the committal proceedings alleging contempt against the plaintiff, the High Court of Singapore passed an order directing the plaintiff to withdraw the present proceedings, as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction. Accordingly, the plaintiff is required to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, grave and irreparable loss or damage that the plaintiff would suffer in the absence of such temporary injunction and the balance of convenience being in favour of the plaintiff. In this regard, reliance was placed on judgement of this Court in the case of Modi Entertainment Network and another Vs. W. S. G. Cricket PTE Limited, (2003) 4 SCC 341 and judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Interdigital Technology Corporation Vs. Xiaomi Corporation and others [judgement and order dated 03.05.2021 passed in Interim Application No.8772 of 2020 in CS (Comm) 295 of 2020]. B. It was submitted that while demonstrating that the plaintiff indeed has a strong prima facie case in his favour, the enquiry would be limited to examining whether the plaintiff, as a consequence of the anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court of Singapore, would be left remediless in connection with his grievance regarding oppression and mismanagement in the defendant No. 1 company. The antisuit injunction granted against the plaintiff, in the present case, prohibits him from pursuing his petition pending before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on this Court that the enforcement of an award passed in pursuance of the arbitral proceedings was agreed to be subject to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act). According to the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, this is a crucial aspect of the matter, for the reason that under the recognized public policy of India, disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement are non-arbitrable and an arbitral award deciding such disputes would be un-enforceable in India. On this basis, it was submitted that insofar as the disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement being raised by the plaintiff are concerned, the arbitration proceeding is not a remedy at all. Hence, it was emphasized that, the petition filed before the NCLT is the only remedy available in law for the plaintiff to raise disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement. E. On this basis, the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that if the anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court of Singapore was to be enforced, the plaintiff would be left remediless and without any access to justice. By relying upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to oppression and mismanagement. According to the plaintiff, the present proceedings cannot be turned into a platform to examine the question as to whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case about the disputes concerning oppression and mismanagement. The arguments raised on behalf of the defendants, according to the plaintiff, about the petition filed before the NCLT being a 'dressedup' petition and the same being agitated before this Court is wholly misplaced and it cannot become a component of the aspect of prima facie case being examined by this Court in the present application. According to the plaintiff, the limited enquiry to be made by this Court is to see whether the petition, on the face of it, pertains to disputes of oppression and mismanagement and whether the NCLT has exclusive jurisdiction to decide such questions, coupled with the specific contention of the plaintiff that such disputes are non-arbitrable and if the anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court of Singapore is allowed to operate, it would lead to the plaintiff being rendered remediless. H. In that context, it was submitted that this Court could conclude that the plaintiff had faile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as a platform to advance such submissions and effectively short-circuit the statutory mandate of applying under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act, even if the defendants claim that the disputes raised by the plaintiff before the NCLT pertain only to contractual obligations, and therefore, the parties must be referred to arbitration. It was also indicated that while considering the petition filed by the plaintiff before the NCLT, this court could apply a test akin to the test applied by courts while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), by proceeding on the basis that the statements made in the petition are true and correct. K. The learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff referred to the judgement of the Court of Appeal at Singapore to contend that findings were rendered in favour of the plaintiff, recognizing that the disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement could be ventilated by the plaintiff only before the NCLT in India. Yet, only on two grounds, the Court of Appeal at Singapore held against the plaintiff. It was submitted that in this context the Court of Appeal at Singapore wrongly refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to do with the question of oppression and mismanagement. It was submitted that the petition filed before the NCLT, on the face of it, was a 'dressed-up' petition and nothing but a dishonest attempt on the part of the plaintiff to avoid resolution of disputes through arbitration. This was appreciated in the correct perspective by the High Court of Singapore and the Court of Appeal at Singapore to hold against the plaintiff. In such a situation, the plaintiff was expected to open his case by showing as to how such a petition filed before the NCLT could even remotely be concerned with disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement. B. The learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No. 2 extensively referred to the reliefs sought in the petition filed before the NCLT, the pleadings contained therein and, on that basis, he submitted that the language used in the petition amounted to clever drafting and mere reproduction of Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, with key words picked up from judgements of various courts pertaining to disputes of oppression and mismanagement. On this basis, it was submitted that this Court, while examining as to whether a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the question of oppression and mismanagement like chanting of mantras, in order to dishonestly claim that such questions could be decided only by the NCLT and not through the process of arbitration. Reliance was placed on judgements of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Shanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 and T. Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467. F. It was submitted that existence of jurisdiction is a sine qua non or a condition precedent for the exercise of power by a court or tribunal and such jurisdictional fact must at least be prima facie established before this Court by the plaintiff. It was emphasized that the plaintiff must at least prima facie demonstrate that the petition filed before the NCLT is maintainable and satisfies the requirements of Section 242(1) (a) and 242(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, to claim the benefit of exclusive jurisdiction of NCLT by applying Section 430 thereof. Reliance was placed on judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Jain Vs. Kalinga Tubes Limited, AIR 1965 SC 1535, in support of the said proposition. In order to deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff as regards the q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rbitration proceedings and therefore, the plaintiff could not be permitted to pursue parallel proceedings before the NCLT. In that light, it was submitted that the anti-suit injunction was correctly granted by the Courts at Singapore and not even a prima facie case was made out by the plaintiff to resist enforcement thereof. J. It was further submitted that this Court, while considering the present application, was entitled to examine as to whether the petition filed before the NCLT was really a petition raising disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement and that this Court could certainly apply the test of substance over form. In that context, it was submitted that the plaintiff could not claim that the test to be applied would be the test pertaining to rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. The aspect of the petition being a 'dressed-up' petition could certainly be examined by this Court while rendering a finding on the question as to whether the plaintiff was entitled for a temporary injunction order restraining enforcement of the anti-suit injunction granted by the Courts at Singapore. 25. Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, learned senior counsel a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the parties, to be conducted at Singapore. D. The learned senior counsel for defendant No. 3 dealt with each of the judgments referred to on behalf of the plaintiff in rejoinder and distinguished the same, by contending that in the present case, the real nature of disputes and grievances of the plaintiff pertain to contractual obligations under the SHA and statements were made in the petition filed before the NCLT by using words and phrases from Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 and key words from the judgments relevant for the aspect of oppression and mismanagement, in the absence of any factual substratum being pleaded as regards equitable considerations relevant for disputes concerning oppression and mismanagement. On this basis, the learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No. 3 sought dismissal of the present application. 26. Ms. Rishika Harish, learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos. 4 and 5 relied upon the submissions made on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and also prayed for dismissal of the present application. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 27. In the light of the chronology of events narrated hereinabove and the rival submissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the said aspect of the matter? (viii) Whether the defendants are justified in contending that once the plaintiff agreed for resolution of disputes through arbitration with the seat of arbitration being chosen as Singapore, he cannot be permitted to raise disputes before any other forum, including the NCLT as even the disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement are arbitrable under Singapore law? (ix) Whether this Court can refer to and take into consideration the findings rendered by the Courts at Singapore in the proceedings initiated between the parties? CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS 28. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that while deciding the present application, whereby the plaintiff seeks temporary injunction to restrain defendant No. 2 from enforcing the anti-suit permanent injunction order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Singapore, the well-established three-pronged test of prima facie case, grave and irreparable loss being suffered in the absence of temporary injunction and balance of convenience, will have to be examined. This is because a prayer for grant of such temporary injunction amounting to an anti-enforcement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the lis so that the beneficiary of the final verdict can enjoy the fruits thereof. (iv) Interference with the right to pursue one's legal remedies. before the forum which was competent to adjudicate thereon, amounts to "oppression", especially where there is no other forum which the litigant could approach. (v) In patent infringement matters, it was the right of the patent holder to choose the patents which it desired to enforce. The only practical relief available to an SEP holder was by way of anti-infringement action. The right to seek legal redressal, against infringement, was a fundamental right. A proceeding or an order, which resulted in divesting the patent holder of the authority to exercise this fundamental right, was ex facie oppressive in nature. Protection of the jurisdiction of the Court is also a guiding factor. (vi) Comity, as a concept, was grating to the ear, when it proceeded from a court of justice. Where the proceeding or order, of which injunction was sought, was oppressive to the applicant seeking injunction, comity was of relatively little importance, as a factor telling against grant of such injunction. Even if grant of inj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 26.10.2021, passed by the High Court of Singapore. 33. At the heart of the matter concerning the aspect of prima facie case, lies the question as to what factors the plaintiff needs to demonstrate before this Court. There is clear divergence in the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendants on the other, as to the nature of enquiry to be conducted by this Court, the factors to be taken into consideration and the various aspects that can be gone into and bundled together for arriving at a finding as regards the assertion of prima facie case made on behalf of the plaintiff. 34. It is the case of the plaintiff that the settled position of law, as applicable in India, leaves no forum for the plaintiff for adjudication of his disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement, except the NCLT. It is submitted that although the plaintiff had agreed for resolution of disputes through arbitration with the seat of arbitration being chosen as Singapore, a proper reading of the arbitration clause would show that enforcement of any award in pursuance of such arbitration proceedings, would be under the Arbitration Act. It is contended that the posi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 38. The question as to whether the NCLT has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement, has arisen before Courts and after much deliberation, it has been found that only the NCLT has exclusive jurisdiction to decide such disputes. No Court, including a Civil Court, can go into such disputes. In this regard, Sections 241, 242 and 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 are relevant. 39. Section 241 of the Companies Act provides for filing of an application before the NCLT for relief in cases of oppression etc. Section 242 thereof specifies the powers of the NCLT, when such an application is filed under Section 241. These two provisions clearly specify that the NCLT has power to consider disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement, as also the procedure and powers to be exercised by the NCLT while considering and deciding such disputes. Section 430 of the Companies Act specifically provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter that the NCLT is empowered to determine under the Companies Act, 2013 or any other law for the time being in force. For the sake of further clarity,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued by the High Court of Singapore, restrains him from pursuing his petition filed before the NCLT, he is effectively rendered remediless. This is further based on the assertion that as per Indian law, such disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement are non-arbitrable. This aspect has also been dealt with in various cases in Courts of law in India and the Supreme Court has also confirmed the said position of law. 44. In the case of N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v/s. Indo Unique Flame Limited and others (supra), the Supreme Court categorically held as follows: "42. The broad categories of disputes which are considered to be non- arbitrable are penal offences which are visited with criminal sanction; offences pertaining to bribery/ corruption; matrimonial disputes relating to divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody and guardianship matters, which pertain to the status of a person; testamentary matters which pertain to disputes relating to the validity of a will, grant of probate, letters of administration, succession, which pertain to the status of a person, and are adjudicated by civil courts. 43. Certain c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s pertaining to oppression and mismanagement are arbitrable, the plaintiff cannot rely upon nonarbitrability of such disputes under Indian law, to claim that the only remedy available is before the NCLT. In this context, the arbitration clause of the SHA assumes significance. It reads as follows: "20. GOVERNING LAW AND ARBITRATION 20.1 This Agreement and its performance shall begoverned by and construed in all respects in accordance with the laws of the Republic of India. In the event of a dispute relating to the management of the Company or relating to any of the matters set out in this Agreement, parties to the dispute shall each appoint one nominee/representative who shall discuss in good faith to resolve the difference. In case the difference is not settled within 30 calendar days, it shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Clause 20.2 below. 20.2 All such disputes that have not been satisfactorily resolved under Clause 20.1 above shall be referred to arbitration before a sole arbitrator to be jointly appointed by the Parties. In the event the Parties are unable to agree on a sole arbitrator, one of the arbitrators shall be appointed j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., shall be subject to provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act. There is a specific stipulation that neither party would seek to resist the enforcement of the award in India or elsewhere on the basis that the award is not subject to such provisions. 50. This Court finds that even though the place of arbitration is chosen as Singapore, since enforcement of the award of the arbitral tribunal is to be in terms of the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, the fact that disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement are non-arbitrable under Indian law, assumes significance. In such a situation, it cannot be said that since the disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement are arbitrable under Singapore law, the plaintiff has the forum of arbitration in the chosen seat at Singapore to ventilate his grievances pertaining to such disputes. What use would be the findings of the arbitral tribunal at Singapore on the question of oppression and mismanagement, when the award consisting of such findings, can never be enforced in India? 51. In the light of the specific stipulation in the above-quoted arbitration clause that the arbitral award would be enforceable only under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere gone into in the arbitral proceedings at Singapore, the award pursuant thereto would be incapable of enforcement in India under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act. 54. This can lead to no other conclusion, but holding that the plaintiff, can seek redressal of his grievance on the aspect of oppression and mismanagement, only in his petition filed before the NCLT. This being the only remedy available to the plaintiff, the anti-suit permanent injunction granted by the High Court of Singapore prevents him from exercising his right to such a remedy, thereby rendering him remediless. 55. The Supreme Court, in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmed v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra), held that access to justice is vital for rule of law and that it is a universally recognized right. In the case of Anita Kushwaha v/s. Pushap Sudan (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that access to justice is a valuable right recognized by Courts universally, including in India. In fact, such a right of access to justice is elevated to the status of right to life, under Article 21 of Constitution of India and also right of equality guaranteed under Article 14 thereof. The Supreme Court, in the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of Interdigital Technology Corporation and others v/s. Xiaomi Corporation and others (supra), with which this Court agrees, are of relevance, particularly because they pertain to issues arising when a plaintiff seeks an anti-enforcement injunction. In the above-quoted portion of the said judgment, one of the principles recognized is that if the right of a person to pursue legal remedies before the forum competent to adjudicate such rights, is interfered with, it amounts to oppression, particularly when there is no other forum available to the litigant to ventilate his grievances. The principle of comity of Courts is well recognized, but the said principle cannot override the aforesaid valuable right of a litigant to access of justice, particularly when an injunction, as in this case, an anti-suit injunction, is issued by a foreign Court having the effect of interference with or preventing the plaintiff from pursuing the only legal remedy available in the facts and circumstances of the case. If such an injunction of the foreign Court is offensive to the domestic public policy, enforcement of the same can be resisted and the principle of comity of Courts cannot be used as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt is of the opinion that only a very limited exercise can be undertaken while perusing and considering the petition filed by the plaintiff before the NCLT. This would be limited to examining as to whether such a petition at all pertains to disputes concerning oppression and mismanagement under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act. If it is found that the petition has nothing to do with the aspects of oppression and mismanagement, in the sense that the subject matter of the petition is wholly foreign to the disputes that can be adjudicated under the Companies Act, 2013 and particularly, under Sections 241 and 242 thereof, a finding could be rendered on the aspect of prima facie case against the plaintiff. For instance, if the body of the petition pertains to disputes that have nothing to do with the SHA, or only a set of papers have been given the title of a petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, to be placed before the NCLT, this Court could reach a conclusion that even a bare look at the petition itself shows that mere filing of the same before the NCLT cannot ipso facto lead to the plaintiff claiming anti-enforcement order against the defendants h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is also of the opinion that the question as to whether the claims made by the plaintiff in the said petition can be said to be only contractual disputes to be resolved by arbitration, is also a question that can be decided only by the NCLT. This is because the defendants are entitled to invoke Section 45 of the Arbitration Act, which provides for a power to a judicial authority (in this case, the NCLT) to refer the parties to arbitration. The defendants can certainly file such an application under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act before the NCLT and make out a case for referring the parties to arbitration. 65. Any exercise involving detailed examination of the petition filed before the NCLT, at the hands of this Court, would be hazardous as it would amount to deciding the question that lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the NCLT itself. After all, a Court or an authority has the jurisdiction to decide the very question as to whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding or not. This is a settled principle of law and reliance placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Bhatia Co-operative Housing Society Limited v/s. D. C. Patel (supra) rendere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the petition are true. It is submitted that in the present case, this Court cannot apply the said test and on the other hand, it will have to satisfy itself as to whether genuine disputes of oppression and mismanagement are made out by the plaintiff with reference to Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. 69. As regards the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the rival parties, this Court is of the opinion that the focus has to be on the question as to whether only the NCLT has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and consider such a petition, pertaining to disputes of oppression and mismanagement. When the aspect of prima facie case is viewed from this angle, the detailed submissions made on behalf of the rival parties on applying principles akin to those governing an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, appear to be inapposite, and therefore, this Court refrains from rendering any detailed findings thereon. 70. In view of the above, the fact that the plaintiff has been able to show that if the anti-suit permanent injunction order granted by the High Court of Singapore is enforced, he will be rendered remediless, is enough to make out a strong pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contracts indicating that the company is in the nature of a partnership, have been elaborated. Again, there can be no quarrel with the propositions laid down therein. 74. But, this Court is of the opinion that discussion on these aspects and consideration of the said judgements relied upon by the rival parties is not necessary while deciding the present application, for the reason that such detailed arguments would have to be advanced before the NCLT in the petition filed by the plaintiff. If the defendants choose to file an application under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act, to claim that in the real sense, the grievances and disputes raised by the plaintiff are purely contractual in nature, due to which the parties must be referred to arbitration, such detailed arguments would also have to be advanced before the NCLT itself. This Court cannot cross the line and trench upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT in such matters. Hence, questions (ii) to (viii) framed hereinabove in paragraph 27 are answered accordingly. 75. In this context, it becomes relevant as to whether this Court can refer to the judgements and orders passed by the Courts in Singapore in the proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication would be finally disposed of within 10 to 12 months. There is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff that this timeline ought to have been placed before the Court of Appeal at Singapore in the context of the first reason assigned, while confirming the anti-suit permanent injunction order of High Court of Singapore. This Court leaves it at that. The second reason assigned by the Court of Appeal at Singapore was that it was too speculative to conclude that arbitration would be a fruitless exercise just because of the possibility that the award would not be enforceable in India. This, despite having taken note of the categorical position in Indian law as manifested in the aforesaid judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Karia Vs. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (supra) that when the subject matter is found to be non-arbitrable under Indian law, the enforcement of an award pertaining to such a subject matter would be against the public policy of India and hence unenforceable under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act. But, this Court is referring to the said aspects of the judgement of the Court of Appeal at Singapore, only for the reason that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gement disputes, instead being disputes purely contractual in nature. Hence, the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. 82. Thus, this Court finds that the plaintiff has made out all the three parameters for grant of temporary injunction to resist enforcement. ORDER 83. Hence, this Court finds that temporary injunction restraining enforcement of the anti-suit permanent injunction order needs to be granted in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, Temporary injunction is granted in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c), which read as follows: - "(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an Order of temporary injunction restraining Defendant No. 2 and/or its agents, directors, employees, servants and/or any person claiming through or under it from, in any manner, whether directly or indirectly, (i) enforcing the Anti-Suit Permanent Injunction Order dated 26th October 2021 (Annexure 'P' to the Plaint) passed by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore; and (ii) Appeal Court Order dated 6^th January 2023 (Annexure 'P-2' to the Plaint) passed by the Court of Appeal of the Rep....