The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Damini Manchanda vs AvinashBhambhaniconsisting of Justice Amit Bansalreiterated that the Indian Courts could pass an anti-suit injunction order regarding matrimonial proceedings in a Foreign Court when the same is already filed in India.
Facts
The plaintiff had filed a divorce petition against the defendant in New Delhi on 16thDecember 2020, which has been pending for over a year and the defendant avoided service in the said matter. To harass the plaintiff, the defendant filed a divorce case in Canada on 13thDecember 2021.
Procedural History
The aforesaid application came up before the Predecessor Bench on 12th January 2022, when summons in the suit and notice in the present application were issued to the defendant. However, no ex parte interim injunction was granted at that stage.The Division Bench was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff against the abovesaid order. Subsequently, an application for early hearing was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Annexed thereto, was a ‘Case Conference Brief’ (Brief) filed on behalf of the defendant before the Canadian Court which suggested that the defendant wasaware of the present proceedings and despite that, he deliberately chose not to appear before this Court. The opinion of the Indian advocate of the defendant was attached, wherein it was stated that the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking to restrain the defendant from proceeding further in the divorce case in Canada was dismissed, which was clearly an erroneous statement.
Contentions Made
Plaintiff: Relying on Madhavendra L Bhatnagar v. Bhavna Lall, it was submitted that the Indian Courts can pass an anti-suit injunction order against the defendant pursuing matrimonial proceedings before a Foreign Court when matrimonial proceedings have also been filed before competent courts in India.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that Madhavendra(supra) was fully applicable in the present case. The defendant, even though being aware of the present proceedings, did not appear before this Court and precipitated the divorce case before the Canadian Courts. Further, he filed a legal opinion before the Canadian Courts, which is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the records of the present case.An affidavit of service has also been filed on behalf of the plaintiff stating that the summons as well as the notice in the application has been sent to the defendant by way of email.It also noted that maybe the defendant believed that the matrimonial laws in Canada would be more advantageous to him as compared to the Indian law.
The principles for grant of anti-suit injunction as laid down in Modi Entertainment Network &Anr. v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd. were applied in this case and it was observed that the ends of justice will be defeated if the anti-suit injunction is not granted.
Judgment
A prima facie case was made out on behalf of the plaintiffand against the defendant. Since the multiplicity of divorce proceedings before the Courts in India and Canada could result in conflicting decisions, an interim injunction was passed against the defendant restraining him from proceeding with the divorce suit filed by in Canada.Since the defendant failed to enter appearance, he was proceeded against ex-parte. The case was to be listed before the Joint Registrar for further proceedings on 12thSeptember, 2022.
Case:Damini Manchanda vs AvinashBhambhani
Citation: CS(OS) 13/2022
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal
Decided on: 8th July 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
