Anti-Suit Injunctions Against Foreign Courts Must Be Rare: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said courts in India should be slow to grant anti-suit injunctions to stop proceedings before a foreign court, particularly when those proceedings are still at an early stage and have not resulted in a final decision.

A Bench of Justices S V Bhatti and N V Anjaria made the observation while upholding the Calcutta High Court’s December 15, 2025 order setting aside an Alipore court order that had restrained a woman from pursuing divorce proceedings against her husband before a Family Court in the United Kingdom (UK).

Why should anti-suit injunctions be granted sparingly?

The Supreme Court said an anti-suit injunction is not a routine judicial remedy and should not be granted merely because a party seeks to stop proceedings before a foreign court.

“No legitimate ground or logical reason would generally arise to stay the proceedings before the foreign court by way of anti-suit injunction, when they are at an inchoate stage and have not culminated into a final decision,” the Bench said.

Court said Indian courts should be “extremely slow” in issuing such orders unless there are clear legal or jurisdictional grounds to do so.

“As a matter of principle of law and the judicial discretion, the grant of anti-suit injunction is not a matter of course. The anti-suit injunction orders are not supposed to be a routine judicial exercise,” it said.

Court also cautioned that frequent and unmindful use of such powers could undermine the principle of comity of courts and amount to interference with the sovereign judicial jurisdiction of a foreign court.

A wrong exercise of the power could also result in jurisdictional conflicts, multiplicity of proceedings and an indiscriminate expansion of judicial proceedings and reliefs, the Bench said.

What is an anti-suit injunction?

An anti-suit injunction is a judicial order restraining a party from instituting or pursuing proceedings before another court, including a foreign court.

The Supreme Court said Indian courts do have the power to issue such injunctions against a party over whom they have personal jurisdiction. However, the power has to be exercised according to well-recognised principles governing the grant of injunctions.

“The oppressive or vexatious nature of the proceedings and irreparable harm are the twin prime considerations to be borne in mind by an Indian court while putting on hold a judicial process in the foreign jurisdiction,” the Bench said.

It noted that an anti-suit injunction has the tendency to interfere with the jurisdiction of a court in another sovereign territory, over which the Indian court has no jurisdiction.

Why did Supreme Court reject the husband’s challenge?

The case arose from divorce proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife before the Central Family Court in the UK.

The Alipore trial court had, on November 1, 2025, restrained the wife, her men and agents from prosecuting, continuing or taking any further steps in the UK divorce proceedings. The order also extended to similar proceedings between the parties before any foreign court.

The Calcutta High Court later set aside the trial court’s order on December 15, 2025. The husband then approached the Supreme Court.

The husband had sought a stay on the UK proceedings on the ground that the wife’s divorce case was based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage. According to him, since irretrievable breakdown was not then recognised as a valid ground for divorce under Indian law, any decree passed by the UK court on that ground would not have efficacy or enforceability in India.

The Supreme Court rejected this as a misplaced ground, particularly considering the stage of the proceedings before the UK Family Court.

Court noted that the main proceedings were still pending and all issues, including the jurisdiction of the UK court, were open. The wife was also required to establish her ground for divorce through evidence.

“On the speculative consideration that the suit would be decreed by the UK Family Court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, anti-suit injunction would not have been granted by the Alipore Trial Court,” the Bench held.

It said the trial court had proceeded on a premature ground at a premature stage.

Why did Supreme Court find the UK to be the more convenient forum?

The Supreme Court also considered the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a court to examine whether the proceedings have been brought before a forum that is convenient for the parties or whether another court would be better placed to decide the dispute.

The doctrine is particularly relevant in matrimonial proceedings, Court said, where the court may stay proceedings before an inconvenient forum if another forum would better serve the interests of justice.

In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the Calcutta High Court that the UK was the forum conveniens.

Court noted that both the husband and wife had been residing in the UK. The husband had lived there for several years since the age of 14-15, while the wife was in the UK on a student visa and was a “habitual resident” there.

Although the couple had married in Kolkata, they had lived in the UK for most of the time before and after their marriage. The wife was also residing in the UK when the proceedings were filed in India.

“Both parties lived together as husband and wife in London, the UK and had established their interests in that country showing the intentions to permanent stay there,” the Bench said.

Court said the parties’ prolonged matrimonial life in the UK, their matrimonial home, habitual residence and financial arrangements there constituted substantial connecting factors with the country.

What happened to the UK divorce proceedings?

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, English District Judge Shorthose at the Birmingham Civil and Family Justice Centre passed a conditional divorce decree on June 17, 2026.

The Supreme Court stayed that decree on July 30, 2026.

While dismissing the husband’s appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matrimonial dispute.

It said either party would remain at liberty to challenge, as may be advised, any further or final order passed by the UK Family Court.

Case Title: Mihir Prakash Bajoria Vs Vidushi Jain Bajoria

Bench: Justices S V N Bhatti and N V Anjaria

Date of Judgment: September 22, 2026