The main legal point established in the judgment is that courts should be cautious in granting anti-suit injunctions and should not interfere in the enforcement of awards by properly constituted arbitral tribunals, except in narrow and exceptional circumstances.

1. This is E-City’s application in an action for an anti-suit injunction and damages. E-City (“E-City”) is part of the Essel Group of companies. Among their various concerns are interests in the cinema/cinema theatre business. IMAX is a Canadian Corporation, one that specializes in large-format films and projection systems. These have now come to be known by IMAX’s name, IMAX. The application seeks to restrain IMAX (“IMAX”) from executing or taking any steps in execution or implementation of certain arbitration awards; and, specifically, from proceeding with or seeking any reliefs in the execution / enforcement proceedings adopted by IMAX before the Supreme Court of New York.

2. Having heard Mr. Chagla, learned Senior Advocate for E-City and Dr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate for IMAX at some length, and, with their assistance having considered the material on record, I am not persuaded that this is an appropriate case for the grant of reliefs sought.

3. Briefly, these are the facts. On 20th September 2000, the parties entered into an agreement. There is some difference as to whether this was a ‘Letter of Intent’, as E-City claims, or whether this was a ‘Master Agreement’, as IMAX does. For our purposes, this makes no difference. Under the agreement, E-City was to take delivery of certain projection systems. According to IMAX, E-City committed breach of this agreement: it made an initial payment towards the lease of one system, but then failed to abide by its remaining obligations.

4. The agreement, whatever the name the parties choose to give it, had a dispute resolution clause. This provided for arbitration in accordance with ICC Rules. An Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. IMAX was the claimant. It sought damages. The Arbitral Tribunal made an award on liability in February 2006 against E-City. E-City was held to have been in breach of the terms of this agreement. This was followed by an award on damages on 24th August 2007. This was in the amount of over US$ 9 million. There was also a final award of 27th March 2008, one that included interest, making the aggregate amount awarded against E-City in excess of US$ 11 million. On 22nd July 2008, E-City filed Arbitration Petition (L) No. 525 of 2008 in this Court under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Arbitration Act”). That Petition was admittedly filed after a delay, and E-City then filed a Notice of Motion seeking that this delay be condoned. On 10th June 2013, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed that Notice of Motion and held inter alia that the Petition was maintainable under Section 34. From that decision, IMAX filed Special Leave Petition No. 34009 of 2013 to the Supreme Court. On 19th November 2013, the Supreme Court issued notice on that Special Leave Petition and, in the meantime, stayed further proceedings in the Arbitration Petition.

5. IMAX then initiated proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice at Ontario, Canada for a confirmation of the foreign award. E-City opposed those proceedings. There was a full hearing on merits. No issue seems to have been raised about those proceedings being forum non conveniens. Even at that time, i.e., in 2011, E-City did point out that it had a pending petition in this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. This defence seems to have been rejected. E-City did not appeal this decision.

6. In continuation of those enforcement proceedings and now to give recognition to the Canadian judgment, IMAX initiated proceedings before the New York Supreme Court. Since E-City did not appear, default judgment was entered against E-City on 4th May 2012. This was followed by IMAX’s application for execution of that default judgment. This execution was sought against the Essel Group, said to be a parent entity that controls, among others, E-City. In March 2014, E-City moved the New York Supreme Court to vacate the default judgment inter alia on the ground that service had not been pr