{"id":9031,"date":"2026-10-03T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-10-03T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/internationaltradelaw.org\/new\/?p=9031"},"modified":"2026-10-03T11:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-10-03T11:00:00","slug":"anti-suit-injunctions-in-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/internationaltradelaw.org\/new\/anti-suit-injunctions-in-india\/","title":{"rendered":"Anti-Suit Injunctions in India: When Will Courts Intervene?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An anti-suit injunction is an order restraining a party, not a foreign court, from starting or continuing proceedings in another jurisdiction. Because such an order indirectly affects foreign proceedings, Indian courts grant it with caution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure style=\"margin:0;background:#fff;border:1px solid #e4ded2;padding:34px 26px\"><figcaption style=\"text-align:center;margin-bottom:28px\"><p style=\"font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Arial,sans-serif;color:#b48a3c;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.22em;font-size:12px;font-weight:600;margin:0 0 14px\">Infographic<\/p><div style=\"font-family:Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif;color:#0f1f38;font-size:clamp(22px,2.6vw,30px);line-height:1.25\">Three core considerations<\/div><div style=\"font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Arial,sans-serif;color:#5b6270;font-size:15px;margin-top:8px\">Anti-suit injunctions in India after Modi Entertainment Network (2003)<\/div><\/figcaption><div style=\"display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;gap:12px\"><div style=\"flex:1 1 200px;background:#fff;border:1px solid #e4ded2;border-top:3px solid #b48a3c;padding:18px\"><svg width=\"28\" height=\"28\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\" stroke=\"#b48a3c\" stroke-width=\"1.5\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\" aria-hidden=\"true\" style=\"display:block\"><path d=\"M4 20h16\"\/><path d=\"M6 20V10M10 20V10M14 20V10M18 20V10\"\/><path d=\"M3 10h18L12 4z\"\/><\/svg><div style=\"font-family:Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif;color:#0f1f38;font-size:18px;margin:10px 0 6px\">Personal jurisdiction<\/div><div style=\"font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Arial,sans-serif;color:#5b6270;font-size:14px;line-height:1.55\">The defendant must be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Indian court.<\/div><\/div><div style=\"flex:1 1 200px;background:#fff;border:1px solid #e4ded2;border-top:3px solid #b48a3c;padding:18px\"><svg width=\"28\" height=\"28\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\" stroke=\"#b48a3c\" stroke-width=\"1.5\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\" aria-hidden=\"true\" style=\"display:block\"><path d=\"M12 3v18\"\/><path d=\"M5 7h14\"\/><path d=\"M5 7l-3 7a3 3 0 0 0 6 0z\"\/><path d=\"M19 7l-3 7a3 3 0 0 0 6 0z\"\/><path d=\"M8 21h8\"\/><\/svg><div style=\"font-family:Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif;color:#0f1f38;font-size:18px;margin:10px 0 6px\">Ends of justice<\/div><div style=\"font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Arial,sans-serif;color:#5b6270;font-size:14px;line-height:1.55\">Refusing the injunction must be likely to defeat the ends of justice or perpetuate injustice.<\/div><\/div><div style=\"flex:1 1 200px;background:#fff;border:1px solid #e4ded2;border-top:3px solid #b48a3c;padding:18px\"><svg width=\"28\" height=\"28\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\" stroke=\"#b48a3c\" stroke-width=\"1.5\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\" aria-hidden=\"true\" style=\"display:block\"><circle cx=\"12\" cy=\"12\" r=\"9\"\/><path d=\"M3 12h18\"\/><path d=\"M12 3a14 14 0 0 1 0 18\"\/><path d=\"M12 3a14 14 0 0 0 0 18\"\/><\/svg><div style=\"font-family:Georgia,'Times New Roman',serif;color:#0f1f38;font-size:18px;margin:10px 0 6px\">Comity<\/div><div style=\"font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Arial,sans-serif;color:#5b6270;font-size:14px;line-height:1.55\">Due regard must be given to the principle of comity, as the order affects a foreign court.<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The governing principles<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd.<\/em> (2003), the Supreme Court of India set out the principal considerations: the defendant must be amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the Indian court; the court must be satisfied that refusing the injunction would defeat the ends of justice; and due regard must be given to comity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Exclusive jurisdiction and arbitration clauses<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Where parties have agreed on an exclusive forum or on arbitration, courts generally hold them to that bargain. Related questions arise where a party seeks to restrain a foreign arbitration, or where a foreign anti-suit order is met with an anti-anti-suit injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Practical points<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Move quickly: delay can weigh against relief.<\/li>\n\n\n<li>Review the dispute resolution clause before any proceedings begin.<\/li>\n\n\n<li>Consider parallel steps in the foreign forum with local counsel.<\/li>\n\n\n<li>Keep positions in India and abroad consistent.<\/li>\n\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>This note is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on a specific matter, please <a href=\"https:\/\/internationaltradelaw.org\/new\/contact\/\">contact us<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>How Indian courts approach requests to restrain a party from pursuing proceedings abroad.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dispute-resolution"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/internationaltradelaw.org\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9031","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/internationaltradelaw.org\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/internationaltradelaw.org\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/internationaltradelaw.org\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/internationaltradelaw.org\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9031"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/internationaltradelaw.org\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9031\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/internationaltradelaw.org\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/internationaltradelaw.org\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/internationaltradelaw.org\/new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}