ROTOMAC ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITEDROTOMAC ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL RAILWAY EQUIPMENT COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of a plaintiff and is directed against an order dated January 31, 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the said learned Judge has dismissed an application for injunction for restraining the respondent from initiating or proceeding with any legal proceeding in any Court in Illinois or any other place in the United States of America or in any forum other than that of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) BEING dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come up with the present appeal. The appellant before us filed in the Original Side of this Court a Civil Suit being No.10 of 2011 thereby praying for the following reliefs:

(3.) THE learned Single Judge, by the order impugned in this appeal, dismissed the said application even without issuing any notice upon the respondent and thereby holding that 1) the primary requirement of obtaining an order of anti-suit injunction has not been proved by the plaintiff; 2) the parties having agreed to be governed by the laws of Illinois, even though there may not be any forum selection clause, having regard to the rule of comity, the court was not inclined to grant a blanket order of injunction for such an order would in effect "amount to interference under exercise of jurisdiction by a foreign court"; 3) when two parties to a contract belong to two different countries and proceedings are initiated in the country of origin of one of the parties to the contract, it could not be said the proceedings were initiated in a forum of non-convenience, if the forum is otherwise competent; 4) at any rate, anti-suit injunction should be granted in very rare and exceptional cases and not for the mere asking; 5) the refusal of injunction as prayed for would not defeat the ends of justice or perpetrate injustice; on the other hand, the grant of injunction would violate the rule comity.