Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has granted an interim stay on the order of the Singapore High Court that restrained Anupam Mittal, the CEO of Shaadi.com, from proceeding against Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Mumbai.

The order was passed by the single judge bench of Justice Manish Pitale while observing that,

“The principle of comity of Courts is well recognized, but the said principle cannot override the aforesaid valuable right of a litigant to access of justice, particularly when an injunction, as in this case, an anti-suit injunction, is issued by a foreign Court having the effect of interference with or preventing the plaintiff from pursuing the only legal remedy available in the facts and circumstances of the case. If such an injunction of the foreign Court is offensive to the domestic public policy, enforcement of the same can be resisted and the principle of comity of Courts cannot be used as a weapon to leave a litigant completely remediless,” the court observed.

The dispute between Westbridge Ventures and People Interactive (India) Pvt Ltd, of which Anupam Mittal was the founder, revolved around a shareholder agreement that stipulated Singapore as the seat of arbitration in case of any dispute.

The dispute arose from Westbridge's intent to appoint nominees to the board of directors, which was opposed by Mittal, who alleged oppression and mismanagement.

Therefore, Mital attempted to approach the NCLT against which Westbridge moved the Singapore High Court, arguing that the seat of arbitration was Singapore. The Singapore High Court allowed the plea against which Mittal filed an appeal in Singapore.

Simultaneously, Mittal approached the Bombay High Court against an anti-suit injunction order passed by the Singapore High Court, which restrained him from approaching the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Mumbai.

Mital argued that the issue of oppression and mismanagement was non-arbitrable whereas Westbridge argued that Mital had agreed to the seat of arbitration as Singapore.

Justice Pitale agreed with the contention of Mital while noting that, “What use would be the findings of the arbitral tribunal at Singapore on the question of oppression and mismanagement, when the award consisting of such findings, can never be enforced in India?” the bench said.

Therefore, the bench then proceeded to grant relief to Anupam Mital while directing the postponement of the Extra Ordinary General Meeting by 8 weeks allowing Mital to approach the NCLT.

Case title: Anupam Mittal vs People Interactive India Pvt Ltd and Ors