MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for anti suit injunction, damages and other reliefs. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking issuance of an ex parte ad interim injunction being I.A. No. 5854/08 has also been filed. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued on 13th May 2008 restraining the Appellants, their agents and representatives from proceeding further with the complaint pending on the file of the United States International Trade Commission, Washington DC, USA ( hereinafter referred to as =USITC‘) under Section 337 of the United States Trade Tariff Act.

2. Against the said ex-parte ad-interim order present Appeal under Section 10(1) of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 read with Order 41 Rule 1(r) of CPC has been filed.

3. While granting the ex parte ad interim injunction the learned single Judge in Para 12 of the impugned order has given the following reasons:-

?In the present case, the plaintiff, in addition to disclosing a prima facie case has been able to satisfy this court that unless ex parte injunctive relief is granted at this stage it would be put to substantial hardship. Such material in the form of notices furnished to it and the copy of the complaint discloses that the proceedings before the Commission are summary in nature. Besides that obvious inconvenience the plaintiff would be put to in entering upon defence, it is doubtful whether the plaintiff would be given the kind of opportunity that it would require to prove its case concerning its authority – as claimed in terms of Indian law, before the Commission having regard to the summary nature of the proceedings and the time schedule within which it has to be completed.?

4. Considering the nature of the injunction passed by the learned Single Judge restraining the appellants herein from continuing to proceed with the proceedings pending in the US Tribunal/Court, we have entertained this appeal because of its urgent nature. Such kind of anti-suit injunction and powers vested in the Court are to be used sparingly as directed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India and with utmost diligence. The injunction in anti suit is not merely inconvenient to the parties to the proceedings but also amounts to interference with the process of administration of justice of the foreign court.

5. Under these circumstances, there is no option for this court except to dispose of this appeal as otherwise, the same may lead to consequences like lapse of the proceedings in the US Court which otherwise ought not to have happened. It is in the ordinary course and as a matter of practice, we may have insisted the parties to go before the learned single Judge to argue the matter on merits. But, given the extra ordinary circumstances of the present case, since the injunction application has so far not been disposed of and considering the urgency of the matter and nature of injunction which is passed by the learned single judge, we have heard the main appeal itself.

6. Whether merits of this appeal are required to be gone into or not, would depend upon the answer to the preliminary objection raised by the respondent i.e. regarding the maintainability of the Appeal itself against an ex-parte ad-interim order when application is still pending. It was also argued that even if the appeal is maintainable the ex parte ad interim order passed by the learned single judge should not be interfered with at this stage as not only the same is a well reasoned and speaking order but also that the submissions of the appellants can only be considered by the learned single Judge who has passed the impugned order in the pending application.

Re. : MAINTAINABILITY

7. In support of his first submission on the maintainability of the appeal the learned senior counsel for the respondent has strongly relied upon the judgments in the case of M/s. Digital Filing System Inc. vs. Akhilesh Agarwal & Another, AIR 2005 Delhi 282; Gautam Adani vs. Container

Click Here to Read the rest of this document