LI Network
Published on: 14 September 2023 at 13:20 IST
The Bombay High Court has granted an interim stay on the enforcement of an anti-suit permanent injunction order issued by the High Court of Singapore against Anupam Mittal, the founder and CEO of Shaadi.com.
This dispute concerns to the constitutional validity of Section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which mandates life imprisonment without the possibility of remission for those found guilty of gang-raping girls under 12 years of age.
The Singapore High Court had restrained Mittal from pursuing a petition alleging corporate oppression by Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Mumbai.
Justice Manish Pitale, in his ruling overturning the injunction order, acknowledged the principle of ‘comity of courts,’ which expects courts to respect the laws of another jurisdiction. However, he emphasized that this principle should not override a litigant’s right to access justice.
“The principle of comity of courts cannot override the valuable right of a litigant to access 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,” Justice Pitale stated.
The dispute between Mittal and Westbridge Ventures revolves around their stakes in People Interactive (India) Pvt Ltd, a company co-founded by Mittal in 1997 and later backed by Westbridge. A Shareholders Agreement (SHA) for People Interactive (India) included an arbitration clause designating Singapore as the seat of arbitration.
The Disagreements arose over the management of People Interactive (India), with Mittal claiming that Westbridge’s actions amounted to oppression and mismanagement. He sought redress through the NCLT.
In March 2021, Westbridge filed a petition in the High Court in Singapore, arguing that the disputes were contractual and arbitrable, and Singapore law should apply due to the arbitration clause. The Singapore High Court issued the anti-suit injunction order in October 2021.
Mittal moved to have the order vacated and appealed it in the Court of Appeals in Singapore while simultaneously filing a suit in the Bombay High Court to permanently enjoin the defendants from enforcing the temporary injunction order. Mittal contended that the oppression and mismanagement disputes were non-arbitrable and that pursuing arbitration in Singapore would be futile.
The Bombay High Court granted Mittal relief in the matter and directed the defendants to adjourn an Extraordinary General Meeting of shareholders for eight weeks, enabling Mittal to pursue his NCLT petition.