Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 1658
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Rekha Palli, JJ.
Jyoti Lakhtakia - Appellant
Versus
Vineet Mehra - Respondent
Mat App (FC) No. 24 of 2021
Decided On : 16-02-2021
Prosenjeet Banerjee, Advocate, Shreya Singhal, Advocate, Prachi Dutta, Advocate, Malvika Rajkotia, Advocate, Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, Ekta Sharma, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court must consider the jurisdiction and balance of convenience when granting an anti-suit injunction, especially when the issues are pending before another court and the parties have participated in those proceedings.
Headnote:
Anti-Suit Injunction - Family Courts Act - Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC - [UWA] - Jurisdiction - Ontario Court - British Virgin Islands - United Kingdom - Singapore
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Jyoti, appealed against an order restraining her from pursuing a declaration regarding the ownership of Universal Wealth Asset Limited (UWA) before the Ontario Court. The parties were married in Delhi and separated in 2014. Jyoti initiated proceedings in the Ontario Court for child custody and support, mentioning Vineet's businesses, including UWA. Vineet filed a suit in India seeking a declaration that Jyoti was the beneficial owner of UWA and an anti-suit injunction against her. Jyoti contested the suit, stating she was a foreign national and did not submit to the Indian court's jurisdiction. The Ontario Court set aside an uncontested order in Jyoti's favor, and Vineet sought adjournment of the trial, which was declined. Subsequently, he filed an application for an anti-suit injunction in India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Family Court erred in granting the anti-suit injunction. It noted that the issues regarding UWA were pending before the Ontario Court, and Vineet had participated in those proceedings without disputing jurisdiction. Jyoti had raised a serious issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Indian Court, and the balance of convenience favored allowing the trial before the Ontario Court to proceed. The court set aside the injunction and dismissed Vineet's application.
Issues: The key issues included the jurisdiction of the Indian Court to try the suit, the participation of Vineet in the Ontario Court proceedings, and the balance of convenience in granting the anti-suit injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Family Court erred in granting the anti-suit injunction as the issues were pending before the Ontario Court, and Vineet had participated in those proceedings without disputing jurisdiction. The court also noted that Jyoti had raised a serious issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Indian Court, and the balance of convenience favored allowing the trial before the Ontario Court to proceed.
Final Decision: The court set aside the injunction and dismissed Vineet's application, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
JUDGMENT
Vipin Sanghi, J. - The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant Ms. Jyoti Lakhtakia (hereinafter referred to as Jyoti) - who is the wife of the respondent Mr. Vineet Mehra (hereinafter referred to as Vineet) to assail the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act (in C.S. No.14/2018) preferred by the respondent Vineet. By the impugned order the Family Court has restrained the appellant Jyoti from proceeding or prosecuting the issue of declaration in respect of transfer of Universal Wealth Asset Limited - a company incorporated in The British Virgin Islands; governed by the laws of United Kingdom, and; having its banking operations in Singapore (for short "UWA?), before the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada (hereinafter referred to as the Ontario Court), or any other Court. The appellant Jyoti has, however, been granted liberty to pursue her claim for maintenance and custody of the child without specifically claiming the aforesaid declaration.
2. The submission of Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant is that the anti-suit injunction granted by the Family Court as aforesaid by the impugned order is completely without jurisdiction; wholly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case, and; in breach of the well established principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court for grant of an anti-suit injunction. To appreciate the submissions of the parties, we may notice some of the relevant facts before considering their submissions.
3. The parties were married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 07.11.2008 at Delhi. On 28.11.2013, they were blessed with a daughter. On 14.11.2014, they separated. On 03.08.2015 Vineet filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Delhi. On the other hand, Jyoti commenced proceedings against Vineet for child custody and child & spousal support in the Ontario Court on 28.08.2015.
4. In her claim for maintenance/ child & spousal support, Jyoti mentioned the businesses carried out by Vineet, including the business of UWA. Jyoti states that on 18.12.2015, she filed a detailed trial affidavit in relation to Vineet?s income sources which included details about UWA. Apparently, on account of non-appearance of Vineet despite service, the Ontario Court passed a judgment dated 30.08.2016 noticing Vineet?s noncompliance and deliberate delay in not participating in the proceedings.
5. On 26.10.2016 Vineet filed a motion with a detailed affidavit to set aside the relief granted to Jyoti vide judgment dated 30.08.2016 by the Ontario Court. On 31.01.2017, Vineet filed a detailed response affidavit before the Ontario Court, wherein he made specific averments with regard to UWA. Some of the averments made in the said affidavit by Vineet dated 31.01.2017 read as follows:
"22. Universal Wealth Assets Singapore ("Universal Wealth') was formed in the British Virgin Islands by Jyoti. It is her company and she is the sole shareho1der of it. She operated Universal Wealth through a nominee director (Greenland Limited) to create a layer between her and management. Because the company was established in the British Virgin Islands, which is a tax haven that operates under the Swiss banking principles of secrecy, I have been unable to obtain records evidencing Jyotf1's ownership of Universal Wealth. However, I was able to secure a letter from Greenland Limited confirming that Jyoti is its owner. Attached as Exhibit "E" is a copy of this letter. I believe that the fact that Jyoti has copies of account statements, fund transfers, and other confidential documents related to Universal Wealth is evidence of her interest in it.
23. x x x x x x x x x
24. Jyoti used Univeral Wealth to shelter herself from Canadian. taxes related to these opportun
