MODI ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK AND ANR. versus W.S.G. CRICKET PTE. LTD.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 21-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MODI ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK AND ANR. 
v. 
~ 
.. 
W.S.G. CRICKET PTE. LTD. 
JANUARY 21, 2003 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
\ 
~ 
Anti-Suit Injunction-Grant of-Principles explained 
f-, 
c 
Anti-Suit Injunction-Contract between· parties-Disputes-Suit for 
damages in Indian Court-Other party filing action before English Court-
Court of natural jurisdiction granting anti-suit injunction against party to 
suit-Restraining party from instituting and/or prosecuting suit between them 
in foreign court of choice of parties-Division Bench vacating anti-suit 
.... 
injunction-Justification of-Held: When parties have agreed to submit to 
D non-exclusive jurisdiction of English Courts in accordance with English law, 
intention of parties as expressed in contract to be given effect except when 
strong reasons justifY disregard of contractual obligation-On facts no good 
and sufficient reason made out to grant anti-suit injunction in disregard of 
jurisdiction clause-Hence order of Division Bench justified 
-). 
E 
Respondent had the exclusive right to grant commercial rights 
relating to an international event. rt entered into a contract with second 
appellant and granted exclusive licence to telecast the ICC Knockout 
Tournament (the event) on Doordarshan and to sell advertisement slots 
thereon. Second appellant assigned its right to the first appellant; The 
F 
contract contained a jurisdiction clause that the contract will be governed 
by and be construed in accordance with the English law and to submit to 
the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. Disputes arose between 
• 
the parties. Appellants filed a suit in Bombay High Court claiming 
damages for the loss of advertising revenue due to alleged illegal threats 
of the respondent. Respondent filed an accion in the English Court praying 
G for a money decree for the minimum guaranteed ainount and taking out 
writ of summons. Appellants entered appearance before the English Court 
and subsequently took out motion in the Bombay High Court praying for 
anti-suit injunction against the respondent to restrain it from proceeding 
..+ 
with action brought by it in the English Court. Single Judge granted anti-
H 
suit injunction against the respondent. Division Bench set aside the order 
480 
• 
MODI ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK v. W.S.G. CRICKETPTE. LTD. 
481 
granting anti-suit injunction. Hence the present appeal. 
A 
Appellants contended that the Indian Court was a natural and 
appropriate forum; that the Single Judge correctly recorded the finding 
that the action initiated by the respondent in the English Court was 
vexatious and oppressive; that the Division Bench dismissed the motion 
erroneously taking the view that only if a party commenced litigation in B 
a Foreign Court in breach of a contract stipulating that the Indian Courts 
would have exclusive jurisdiction, could an anti-suit injunction be granted; 
that the English Court is a forum non-convenience as the appellants have 
to take all the witnesses to London which would cause great inconvenience 
and economic loss and unless the Court grants injunction against the C 
respondent, it would result in disastrous consequences to the appellants; 
that the English Court had no nexus whatsoever with the parties or the 
subject-matter; and that the contractual stipulation for non-exclusive 
jurisdiction of the English Courts would not preclude the Indian Courts 
from granting anti-suit injunction. 
D 
Respondent contended that the primafacie finding of the Single Judge 
in regard to the action of the respondent in the English Court being 
vexatious and oppressive would not bind the Judge himself at the stage of 
final hearing of motion much less would it bind the Division Bench in 
Appeal; that the parties had clearly stipulated in the contract for resolution 
of their disputes in accordance with the English Law and in the English E 
Court, therefore, the appropriate forum would be the English Court; that 
it being the court of choice of the parties no injunction could be granted · 
against the respondent from prosecuting the case before that Court; that 
the foreseeability test pleaded by the appellants was not relevant; that the 
parties had chosen neutral forum in preference to natural.forums-Indian F 
Courts and Singapore Courts; that in any event when a party had 
approached an agreed jurisdiction under a contract, whether exclusive or 
non-exclusive, the other party could not be allo

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