(1.) HEARD finally by consent. The Appellant/plaintiff has challenged impugned order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the learned judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, whereby for want of jurisdiction, the learned judge, refused to grant any anti -suit injunction. This Court, after hearing the Appellant at length, by a reasoned judgment/order on 18 December 2013 granted injunction in the following terms:
(2.) THE reason so recorded in the above order dt 18/12/2013 be treated as part and parcel of the present order as after hearing both the parties finally, I am inclined to dispose of the present Appeal from Order by adding the following grounds.
(3.) IN reply affidavit dated 23 December 2013 all necessary objections have raised including the maintainability of such Suit in view of the provisions of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act. The submissions are also raised that the parties shall be governed by the Laws of Hong Kong and no benefit whatsoever should be granted in favour of the Appellant/plaintiff, who has committed breach of contract terms. The submission is also made that the pleadings are not sufficient to accept the case of oppressive and/or vexatious litigation. The litigation, expenses or the hardship and/or heavy expenditure are also not be the reason to accept the case of grant of anti -suit injunction. This Court, therefore, ought not to have granted the injunction as the whole intention is to avoid the foreign decree/judgment, means the due payment and its recovery. The reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of RotomacElectricals Private vs. National Railway Equipment, decided on 31 January, 2011 in GA No.262/2011 (C.S No.10 of 2011) of Calcutta High Court, whereby a Division Bench, refused to grant anti -suit injunction by holding that ''prima facie lack of jurisdiction of Indian Court. ''. In Calcutta Judgment, reference was also made to ModiEntertainment Network vs. W.S.G. Cricket Pvt. Ltd. Reported in (2003)4 SCC 341 and other judgments.