Keywords – Bombay High Court, Singapore Court, Anti-Suit Injunction, Anupam Mittal, Shaadi.com CEO, NCLT Proceedings, Oppression and Mismanagement, Domestic Public Policy
The Bombay High Court has issued a temporary stay on the enforcement of an anti-suit permanent injunction order issued by the High Court of Singapore against Anupam Mittal, the CEO of Shaadi.com. The Singapore High Court’s order had restrained Mittal from proceeding with his petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), where he alleged oppression and mismanagement within People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd, the parent company of Shaadi.com.
Justice Manish Pitale of the Bombay High Court observed that disputes related to oppression and mismanagement are non-arbitrable in India. He stated that the principle of comity of courts cannot prevent a litigant from pursuing the only available legal remedy. In this case, Mittal argued that since oppression cases were not arbitrable in India, the NCLT was the appropriate forum for addressing his grievance.
The dispute between Mittal and Westbridge Ventures pertains to their stake in People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd, which owns Shaadi.com. Westbridge claimed certain contractual rights, including exit rights, under the Shareholders Agreement (SHA) executed with People Interactive. The SHA included an arbitration clause specifying Singapore as the seat of arbitration, with enforcement subject to Indian laws.
In 2019, disputes emerged between the parties regarding the management of People Interactive. Mittal alleged that Westbridge’s actions, such as attempts to appoint its nominees to the Board of Directors, amounted to oppression and mismanagement. He filed a petition with the NCLT to address these issues.
Mittal’s argument was that even if an award on the issue of oppression were obtained from the Singapore tribunal, it would not be enforceable in India under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Westbridge, on the other hand, contended that the dispute should be resolved according to Singapore law due to the specific arbitration clause in the SHA. Westbridge had obtained an anti-suit injunction from the Singapore High Court in October 2021, preventing Mittal from pursuing the company petition in the NCLT.
Unsatisfied with the Singapore High Court’s order, Mittal approached the Bombay High Court, seeking a stay on the anti-suit injunction order. The Bombay High Court granted the stay on September 13, emphasizing that if an injunction from a foreign court is against domestic public policy, it can be resisted, and the principle of comity of courts cannot be used to deprive a litigant of a legal remedy.
This development underscores the complex interplay of international arbitration and domestic legal remedies in resolving disputes involving Indian entities. Mittal’s case highlights the importance of ensuring that legal remedies are available to address grievances within the Indian legal framework, particularly in cases of alleged oppression and mismanagement.
Written by- Shuniti Sinha, College name – Brainware University , Semester- 7th, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments