The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Court's jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction is contingent upon the defendant being amenable to its personal jurisdiction and the cause of action for the injunction arising within its jurisdiction.

This is a suit filed for anti-suit injunction restraining the Defendants from proceeding before the Commercial Court in England in respect of the claim filed by them against the Plaintiff herein, being Claim No.2013 Folio 1380. The Notice of Motion seeks an interim order of injunction in the same terms.

2. The Plaintiff is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of selling and marketing medical products. Defendant No.1 is a company incorporated in England having its registered office at Ashford, Kent. Defendant No.1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and production of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. Defendant No.2 is an Indian company, said to be a subsidiary of Defendant No.1.

3. By an Exclusive Distribution Agreement dated 16 May 2011 (EDA), the Plaintiff was appointed as an Exclusive Distributor for resale of the products of Defendant No.1 in a defined territory, namely, India, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives. The Plaintiff was to import and distribute the products in the territory so defined during the term of the EDA, which was to be for two years terminable by a written notice of not less than six months. The EDA inter alia provided that the matters relating to interpretation, construction and enforcement of the EDA shall be governed by the laws of England and that the parties to the EDA agreed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts.

4. By a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding dated 12 March 2012 (MOU), entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the parties inter alia agreed to vary the EDA on the terms set out in the MOU. It was inter alia provided in the MOU that notwithstanding anything contained in the EDA, Defendant No.2 shall be entitled to import the products from Defendant No.1, but that the products shall not be sold by Defendant No.2 to any party other than the Plaintiff. The MOU further provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the EDA, the Plaintiff shall buy products from Defendant No.2 with effect from 13 December 2012 ('the effective date') on the same terms and conditions as contained in the EDA and at prices set out in Schedule-1 to the EDA. The MOU provided that the EDA shall remain in full force and effect, save and except that the obligations of Defendant No.1 to supply the products to the Plaintiff under the EDA shall cease with effect from the effective date and instead would be performed by Defendant No.2. The MOU specifically provided that save as set out in the MOU, “the terms and conditions contained in the Exclusive Distribution Agreement, including without limit, those relating to term and termination, shall remain in force. This MOU has to be read and applied in conjunction with the Exclusive Distribution Agreement.”

5. By a termination notice issued on 18 April 2013, the EDA, as amended by the MOU, was terminated by the Defendants. Certain dues were claimed as due and payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendants under the EDA.

6. On 16 October 2013, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a claim bearing No.2013 Folio 1380 in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Commercial Court in England against the Plaintiff for repayment of a debt of £ 32,299 due from the Plaintiff to the Defendants under the EDA.

7. By a Demand Notice dated 31 October 2013, the Defendants demanded a sum of US $ 30,444 due by the Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 and a sum of INR 79,011,746 due by the Plaintiff to Defendant No.2 under various invoices raised under the EDA as varied by the MOU. The demand was resisted by the Plaintiff inter alia on the ground that the Plaintiff has already initiated proceedings before this Court, being Suit (Lodging) No.918/2013, seeking specific performance of C&F Agreement purportedly entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants and that the demand raised by the Defendants was an afterthought and an attempt for defeating its legitimate claims. (Incidentally, the Plaintiff's application for ad-interim reliefs in th