Modi Entertainment v. WSG Cricket

Anti-suit injunction means an Indian court tells a party (under its control) not to continue a case in a foreign court. In Modi Entertainment, the Supreme Court explained the guardrails: the party must be within the Indian court’s reach; refusing relief must harm justice; and courts must respect comity (courtesy toward foreign courts). The court checks forum conveniens and any jurisdiction clause. Filing in a chosen foreign court is not automatically oppressive. On facts, the anti-suit relief failed.

• What is an anti-suit injunction?
• When can a court of natural jurisdiction in India grant it?

• Indian courts (like English courts) act in personam and may restrain a party over whom they have personal jurisdiction.
• No one can confer jurisdiction on an Indian court where none exists under the CPC.
• When parties choose a foreign court, that court’s jurisdiction flows from the agreement; Indian courts must respect comity.
• Relief depends on amenability, ends of justice, comity, and forum conveniens (oppressive/vexatious proceedings or clear non-convenience).
• Exclusive jurisdiction clause: anti-suit injunction from a natural forum is refused except in exceptional cases with strong reasons.
• Non-exclusive clause: anti-suit is ordinarily not granted; parties accepted the risk of parallel fora.

The Supreme Court set out a three-part threshold (amenability, ends of justice, comity) and emphasised forum conveniens and the jurisdiction clause. It clarified that mere use of a chosen foreign court is not oppressive/vexatious. A court of natural jurisdiction will usually not injunct proceedings in an exclusive chosen forum, except for compelling reasons. On the case facts, the anti-suit request failed and the appeal was dismissed.

• Anti-suit injunction is an equitable, in personam remedy—used sparingly.
• Comity and forum conveniens are central; chosen-court proceedings are not inherently oppressive.
• Exclusive choice-of-court: no injunction save exceptional circumstances; non-exclusive: injunction ordinarily refused.

The case is the go-to guide in India for anti-suit injunctions. It balances party autonomy (jurisdiction clauses), international comity, and access to a fair forum.

• Check amenability + justice + comity first.
• Weigh forum conveniens and contract jurisdiction clauses.
• Chosen-court filing ≠ automatically oppressive.

Mnemonic: A-J-C → F (Amenable → Justice → Comity → then Forum conveniens)

1. Is the defendant amenable to Indian court?
2. Would refusing relief defeat justice?
3. Does comity allow restraint?
4. Finally, is India the convenient forum considering the clause?

Issue: When can Indian courts restrain foreign proceedings by anti-suit injunction?

Rule: Grant only if the party is amenable, justice demands it, comity is respected, and forum conveniens supports India; heed jurisdiction clauses.

Application: Proceedings in the chosen foreign court not per se oppressive; contract terms and comity weighed against injunction.

Conclusion: No anti-suit injunction on these facts; appeal dismissed.

Anti-Suit Injunction

Order restraining a party from starting/continuing a case in another court.

Comity

Mutual respect between courts of different jurisdictions.

Forum Non Conveniens

Doctrine allowing refusal where another forum is clearly more suitable.

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause

Parties agree all disputes go to a single named court.