What are specialized Injunction orders which are issued by Indian courts?

 Indian courts recognize several specialized injunctions beyond the standard temporary, perpetual, mandatory, and prohibitory types, often adapted for IP, commercial, and digital disputes under CPC Order XXXIX and Specific Relief Act provisions.

IP and Evidence Preservation

1) Anton Piller Order (Search and Seizure):

Authorizes the plaintiff to enter the defendant's premises, search for, and seize infringing goods or evidence (e.g., counterfeit products, pirated copies) to prevent destruction, typically in trademark/copyright cases. Known as "John Doe" or "Ashok Kumar" order in India when defendants are unidentified; first issued by Delhi HC in Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal (2002).

Print Page

Whether Indian court can refuse enforcement of an anti-suit injunction passed by a foreign court?

 In a standard essential patent (SEP) royalty rate-setting suit, preferred against the plaintiff before the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Wuhan Court”), the defendant moved an application, on 4th August, 2020, seeking an anti-suit injunction, restraining the plaintiffs from prosecuting the present suit before this Court.

75. Viewed thus, and in the backdrop of Indian Law, the operation of the order, dated 23rd September, 2020, of the Wuhan Court, would violate public policy in this country. No considerations of comity can, therefore, stand in the way of restraining its enforcement.

Negation of jurisdiction

76. There is, in my view, another, and somewhat more serious, objection, to the order, dated 23rd September, 2020, of the Wuhan Court, which directly involves the principle of comity of courts. By conditioning the continuance of the prosecution, by the plaintiffs, of the proceedings before this Court, with a penalty of about ₹ 1 crore per day, the Wuhan Court has effectively rendered it impossible for the plaintiff to continue to prosecute these proceedings. The inexorable sequitur is that this Court is also divested of the opportunity of adjudicating on the dispute, brought before it by the plaintiffs, which it has, otherwise, the jurisdiction to hear and decide. The order of the Wuhan Court, therefore, directly negates the jurisdiction of this Court, and infringes the authority of this Court to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the laws of this country. It is not open to any Court to pass an order, prohibiting a court, in another country, to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in it. Any such decision would amount to a negation of jurisdiction, which cannot be countenanced.

78. For all the above reasons, I am of the view that a clear case, for grant of ad interim injunction, in terms of prayer (i) in para 33 of the present application, is made out.

79. Resultantly, notice shall issue on this application, returnable on 25th November, 2020. The defendants are at liberty, should they so choose, to file any further, or supplementary, response to prayer (i). Pending hearing and decision of the present application, the defendants shall be restrained from enforcing, against the plaintiff, the order, dated 23rd September, 2020, passed by the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court, in the anti-suit injunction application, preferred by the defendants before it.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 I.A. 8772/2020 in CS(COMM) 295/2020

INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION  Vs XIAOMI CORPORATION 

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

Pronounced on : 9th October, 2020

Print Page

Whether divorce can be obtained from foreign court if marriage is performed as per Hindu marriage Act?

 A perusal of the divorce petition filed by the defendant
indicates that the defendant has invoked the Article 3(1) of the
Council Regulation (EC) No.2201/2003 of 27th November 2003 and
has applied for divorce on the ground that the marriage has broken
down irretrievably and also on the ground that the plaintiff herein
has alleged to have behaved in such a way that the defendant
cannot reasonably be expected to live with the plaintiff. Under the
provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, no decree of divorce can
be granted on the ground that marriage has been broken down
irretrievably. This Court while granting ad-interim relief on 30th June
2014 in favour of the plaintiff in this notice of motion has recorded
various reasons and has prima facie observed that the parties
having been married in Mumbai under the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, that law governs the marriage of the party.

49. This Court also considered that the reliefs have been
sought by the defendant in the Family Court, UK against the plaintiff
not under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, either on the
question of jurisdiction or on the question of grounds for dissolution
but under the English Personal law, one that does not govern the
marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant. Considering these facts,
this Court after recording the detailed reasons, had granted adinterim
injunction in terms of prayer clause (b) of the notice of motion
thereby restraining the defendant from proceeding the divorce
proceedings filed by the defendant against the plaintiff which are
before the Family Court at Manchester, UK. Though by the said
order dated 30th June 2014, this Court had granted liberty to the
defendant to apply for modification, variation or recalling of the said
order by filing an affidavit, the defendant filed a Notion of Motion
bearing No.1774 of 2018 for setting aside the ad-interim order dated
30th June 2014 only on 4th July, 2018. The said ad-interim order
passed by this Court is already in force since 30th June, 2014. The
said notice of motion has been withdrawn by the defendant.
50. Admittedly there are no criminal proceedings filed by the
plaintiff against the defendant and the defendant had no
apprehension if the defendant attends the proceedings filed by the
plaintiff against the defendant in the Family Court, Thane. On the
other hand, if the plaintiff is asked to defend the proceedings filed by
the defendant before the Family Court, Manchester, UK, the
defendant who has always obstructed the entry of the plaintiff in UK,
the plaintiff even otherwise would not be able to defend the
proceedings and that would also without financial assistance of the

defendant.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.28 OF 2015
IN
SUIT NO.880 OF 2014

Arunima Naveen Takiar,Vs  Naveen Takiar,

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 29TH JANUARY, 2019

Print Page

Supreme Court: Basic concept of anti-suit injunction

The Courts in India like the Courts in England are courts of both law and equity. The principles governing grant of injunction - an equitable relief - by a court will also govern grant of anti-suit injunction which is but a species of injunction. When a court restrains a party to a suit/proceeding before it from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court including a foreign court, it is called anti-suit injunction. It is a common ground that the Courts in India have power to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, in an appropriate case. This is because courts of equity exercise jurisdiction in personam. However, having regard to the rule of comity, this power will be exercised sparingly because such an injunction though directed against a person, in effect causes interference in the exercise of jurisdiction by another court.

Supreme Court of India

Modi Entertainment Network & Anr vs W.S.G.Cricket Pte. Ltd on 21 January, 2003

Bench: Syed Shah Quadri, Arijit Pasayat

Print Page