Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. Through this application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC"), the plaintiff is seeking, as an interim injunction, essentially the same relief sought in the suit itself , which is to restrain the defendants from initiating any fresh proceedings against the plaintiff in a foreign court and from continuing with the suit - Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. Moser Baer India Ltd. - filed by the defendant No. 1 at The Hague, The Netherlands, as well as from continuing with the third party claim and counter claim filed by the defendant No. 1 against, inter alia, the plaintiff in the complaint [Civ.A. No. 07-3668 (DWF/AJB)] filed by Imation Corporation before the Minnesota District Court, USA. Briefly put, the plaintiff prays for an anti-suit injunction against the defendants (more particularly against defendant No. 1) on the strength of interim orders passed by this Court in the plaintiffs earlier suit [CS (OS) 2026/2006] and on the pleas of forum non-conveniens and that the proceeding before the foreign courts are vexatious and oppressive to the plaintiff. The defendants have resisted this application on inter alias the plea that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction and that the conditions precedent for the grant of an anti-suit injunction as determined by the Supreme Court in Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte Ltd. [2003]1SCR480 have not been fulfillled.

2. The plaintiff manufactures and sells optical and magnetic data storage media products. The defendant Nos. 2 & 3 are alleged to be the Indian "arms" of the subsidiaries of the defendant No. 1, with whom the plaintiff entered into 6 Disc Patent License Agreements (DPLAs) on different dates between 01.07.2001 and 10.02.2003 whereby the defendant No. 1 licensed its patents in respect of the following types of discs - CD-R, CD-RW, DVD+R, DVD-R, DVD-RW and DVD+RW. The DPLAs were for 10 years from their respective effective dates and contained similar terms with some differences with regard to, inter alia, the quantum of royalty payable by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 in respect of each type of disc. Consequently, the plaintiff was liable to pay royalty to the defendant No. 1 in respect of each disc manufactured and sold by it under the DPLAs. Each of these agreements also contained a jurisdiction clause which read as:

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Netherlands. Any disputes between the parties hereto in connection with the Agreement (including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination) shall be submitted to the competent courts of the Hague, the Netherlands, provided always that, in case Philips is the plaintiff, Philips may at its sole discretion submit any such dispute either to the competent courts in the venue of Licensees registered office, or to any of the competent courts in the Territory. Licensee hereby irrevocably waives any objection to the jurisdiction, process and venue of any such court and to the effectiveness, execution and enforcement of any order or judgment (including, but not limited to, a default judgment) of any such court in relation to this Agreement, to the maximum extent permitted by the law of any jurisdiction, the laws of which might be claimed to be applicable regarding the effectiveness, enforcement or execution of such order or judgment.

3. Earlier, in 1995, the defendant No. 1 had entered into a Cross License Agreement (CLA) with Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company (3M company) of USA. Under the CLA, both, the defendant No. 1 and 3M company were granted reciprocal royalty free licenses for each others patents relating to optical disc technology. Subsequently, 3M company assigned its rights under the said CLA to Imation Corporation. The plaintiff manufactured and sold the said products to, inter alia, Imation Corporation and its subsidiary Global