JUDGMENT :

S.S.SUNDAR, J.,

Prayer : Original Side Appeals Suit filed under Section 96 and Order 36 Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 08.08.2014 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Application No.5002/2013 in CS.No.703/2013 and OA.No.796/2013 in CS.No.703/2013.

(1) The above two Original Side Appeals arise out of the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.08.2014 made in A.No.5002/2013 and OA.No.796/2013 in CS.No.703/2013. Both appeals are filed by the 2nd defendant in the suit in CS.No.703/2013. Since the appeals arise out of the common order confirming the order of injunction and dismissing the application to vacate the interim order, the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2) The parties are generally referred to by their litigating status in the suit in CS.No.703/2013. The appellant is either referred to as the appellant or the 2nd defendant. The 1st respondent is either referred to as the plaintiff or the 1st respondent.

(3) Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above two Original Side Appeals are as follows:

(4) The plaintiff/1st respondent is a nationally known public figure being active in politics and public affairs. The plaintiff is a senior politician, a Member of Parliament for five terms and has been a Senior Cabinet Minister in the Central Government holding the portfolios of Commerce, Law and Justice. The plaintiff was the Chairman of the Commission for Labour Standards. He has obtained his Doctorate in Economics from Harvard University in USA. The plaintiff stated in his plaint in CS.No.703/2013 that he has authored a number of books and ranked among the leading scholars in the subjects of Mathematical Economics and the economy of China.

(5) The 1st defendant in the suit is in the business of providing business consultancy services and investments in India. The 2nd defendant is stated to be wholly owned and a subsidiary Company of 1st defendant, however, incorporated in Singapore and having business in Singapore.

(6) The plaintiff has held a press conference in New Delhi, which according to him was to bring out the illegalities in the 'Aircel-Maxis' deal. It is the case of the appellant that several defamatory allegations and remarks were made by the plaintiff against the appellant/Company and its operations in Singapore to impress that the appellant is a completely illegal Company with the sole intention of defaming the appellant. Alleging that such defamatory statements had caused damage to its reputation and loss of business in Singapore, a suit in Suit No.581/2012 has been filed by the appellant before the Hon’ble High Court of Singapore. Immediately after the filing of the said suit, the plaintiff filed a contempt petition in cont.P.[Crl] .No.4/2012 before Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the proceedings in I.A.No.36/2012, filed by the plaintiff as intervenor in Civil Appeal.No.10660/2010, the above contempt petition in Cont.P.[Crl.] .No.4/2012 is filed on the allegation that the defamation suit is filed before the Singapore High Court to prejudice or interfere with the plaintiff's zeal to prosecute with vigour and determine the due course of judicial proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In other words, filing of suit itself in Singapore is described as an attempt to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice attracting criminal contempt under Section 2[c] of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The said contempt petition filed by the plaintiff was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish any nexus between the cases filed by him before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the appellant herein. It is thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit in CS.No.703/2013 before this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) declaring that the initiation and continuation of the action brought by the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1's subsidiary defendant No.2 before the High Court of Singap