Bombay High Court
Anupam Mittal vs People Interactive (India) ... on 22 November, 2021
Bench: R. I. Chagla
Digitally signed
by JITENDRA
JITENDRA SHANKAR
SHANKAR NIJASURE
Date:
NIJASURE 2021.11.24
14:47:39 +0530
35-ia-2827-2021.doc
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2827 OF 2021
IN
SUIT NO.95 OF 2021
Anupam Mittal ...Applicant/
Plaintiff
Versus
People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants
----------
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Counsel, Mr. Kunal Dwarkadas,
Mr. Rahul Dwarkadas, Ms. Silpa Nair and Mr. N. Kotwal and
Mr. Gazdar for the Applicant / Plaintiff.
Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate and Mr. Nikhil
Sakhardande, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Rajendra Barot, Ms.
Arusha Jacob, Ms. Apoorva Gupta, Mr. Vedant Jalan and Ms.
Mrudula Dixit of AZB & Partners for Defendant Nos.2 and 3.
Ms. Vidhi Barot, i/b. Sonu Tandon, for Defendant No.4.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J.
DATE : 22nd NOVEMBER 2021
ORDER :
1. By this Interim Application No.2827 of 2021 taken
out in the above Suit, the Applicant / Plaintiff is seeking to
restrain Defendant No.2 from acting upon and enforcing the
anti-suit injunction order dated 15th March, 2021 passed by
the High Court of the Republic of Singapore, as it then was.
Thereafter, the Plaintiffs as per their statement recorded in the
order dated 1st April, 2021 moved the Court in Singapore to
35-ia-2827-2021.doc
seek vacation of that order. Upon the Application made by the
Plaintiffs, the Singapore Court has now passed a judgment
dated 26th October, 2021 confrming the order dated 15th
March, 2021.
2. The learned Senior Advocate for the Plaintiffs has
apprised the Court that Plaintiffs have preferred an Appeal
from judgment dated 26th October, 2021 which had confrmed
the anti-suit injunction granted against the Plaintiff herein. The
notice of the Appeal has been served upon the Defendants
herein.
3. It is to be noted that by an order dated 1st April,
2021, this Court had recorded the statement of the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the Defendant No.2 that the
extraordinary general meeting of the Defendant No.1 Company
scheduled to be held on 7th April, 2021 will be adjourned to a
subsequent date i.e. 22nd April, 2021 without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the Defendants. This statement has
been continued from time to time and by the last order dated
4th October, 2021 the statement was continued till the next
date i.e. today.
35-ia-2827-2021.doc
4. In view of the fact that the Interim Application
taken out by the Plaintiff herein is required to be heard and
particularly considering that the Interim Application seeks to
restrain the Defendant No.2 from acting upon and enforcing the
anti-suit injunction order which is now permanent anti-suit
injunction, by the judgment dated 26th October, 2021, it would
be appropriate to direct the Defendants to adjourn the meeting
post the Interim Application being heard and decided.
5. The Applicant / Plaintiff herein has also submitted
that an Interim Application has been taken out for amendment
of the Plaint in order to challenge the permanent anti-suit
injunction granted by the Singapore Court by judgment dated
26th October, 2021. Interim Applications (L) Nos.26941 of
2021 and 23885 of 2021 have been taken out including
application by the Defendant No.2 for rejection of the Plaint
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These
Interim Applications shall be placed along with the Interim
Application No.1010 of 2021 on 8th December, 2021 at 2.30
p.m.
[R.I. CHAGLA J.]
