DINESH SINGH THAKUR versus SONAL THAKUR

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 17-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
    DINESH SINGH THAKUR
v.
SONAL THAKUR
(Civil Appeal No. 3878 of 2018)
APRIL 17, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963:
s.41 – Injunction – Refusal of – When – Petition u/ss. 13 and
26 of Hindu Marriage Act – By husband – Pending adjudication,
petition seeking divorce filed by wife in the Court in USA – Suit
filed by husband seeking permanent injuction (anti-suit injunction)
to restrain the wife from pursuing the petition before the Court in
USA – Ex-parte ad interim injunction granted – Therfeafter, on
application by wife, injunction vacated – The order was further
confirmed by High Court – On appeal, held: Both the parties are
permanent citizens of USA – Courts in India as well as in USA have
concurrent jurisdiction – Though wife is amenable to jurisdiction
of Family Court in India, there is nothing on record to hold that
other party could suffer grave injustice if injunction is not granted
– Proceedings in the Foreign Court cannot be said to be oppressive
or vexatious – Injunction – Equity – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 –
ss. 13 and 26 – Jurisdiction.
Injunction:
Anti-suit injunction – Held: Such injunction is meant to restrain
a party to a suit/proceedings from instituting or prosecuting a case
in another court outside its jurisdiction, including a Foreign Court
– Principles governing grant of injunction are common to that of
granting anti-suit injunction – Cases of injunction are basically
governed by doctrine of equity – Courts in India have the power to
issue anti-suit injunction – However, before issuing such injunction,
Courts should be very cautious and careful – It should be granted
sparingly.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Anti-Suit Injunctions are meant to restrain a party
to a suit/proceeding from instituting or prosecuting a case in
[2018] 3  S.C.R. 469
469
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
another court, including a foreign court. An anti-suit injunction is
a judicial order restraining one party from prosecuting a case in
another court outside its jurisdiction. The principles governing
grant of injunction are common to that of granting anti-suit
injunction. The cases of injunction are basically governed by the
doctrine of equity.  [Para 9] [474-E]
2. The courts in India have power to issue anti-suit
injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, in an
appropriate case. However, before passing the order of anti-suit
injunction, courts should be very cautious and careful, and it should
be granted sparingly and not as a matter of routine as such orders
involve a court impinging on the jurisdiction of another court,
which is not entertained very easily specially when it restrains
the parties from instituting or continuing a case in a foreign court.
[Para 10]474-F-G]
3. Though the respondent-wife is amenable to the
jurisdiction of Family Court in India, there is nothing on record
to hold that the other party will suffer grave injustice if the
injunction is not granted. There is no dispute to the fact that both
the parties are permanent citizens of USA.  Undisputedly, the
Court in USA is also having the concurrent jurisdiction in the
given case. The appellant-husband himself has been residing in
USA after 2007 and the proceedings for grant of anti-suit injunction
were initiated by him in India through another person by
empowering him through a power of attorney to file and pursue
the disputed litigation on his behalf. Further, there is nothing
brought on record to show how he would suffer grave injustice if
the injunction restraining the respondent-wife from pursuing the
divorce petition in USA, is not granted.   Still further, even if the
injunction is declined, it cannot be said that the ends of justice
will be defeated and injustice will be perpetuated. [Para 18] [477-
G-H; 478-A-B]
4. The mere fact that the respondent-wife has filed the case
on the ground which is not available to her under the Act, doesn’t
mean that there are likelihood of her succeeding in getting a
decree for divorce, specifically, in view of the fact that the appellant
has raised this contention before the Court in USA and both the
parties will produce evidence with regard to the question whether
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
their marriage is governed by the Act or any other law. Foreign
court cannot be presumed to be exercising its jurisdiction wrongly
even after the appellant being able to prove that the parties in
the present case, continued

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.