Court Allows Temporary Injunction to Proceed Without Foreign Respondents

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

M/s Unire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kensington Tours Ltd. & Ors. (High Court of Rajasthan)

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18625/2024

Date: 28th January 2025

Key Takeaways

• Temporary injunctions can proceed against served respondents even if foreign parties haven’t been served, provided no relief is sought against the foreign parties in that application.
• Petitioners can request deletion of parties from an application if no relief is sought against them.
• The High Court did not interfere with the lower court’s order regarding the main suit but clarified the process for the temporary injunction.
• The decision streamlines proceedings in cases involving both domestic and foreign parties, preventing unnecessary delays.

Issue

Can a trial court proceed to hear an application for temporary injunction against Indian respondents when foreign respondents (against whom no relief is sought in the injunction application) have not yet been served?

Facts

• Parties:
• Petitioner: M/s Unire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur-based company.
• Respondents:
• 1 & 2: Kensington Tours Ltd. (Canada) and its Director (foreign parties).
• 3 to 6: Four individuals/entities based in Rajasthan, India.
• Background:
• The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking damages from all respondents.
• In the suit, the petitioner also filed an application for a temporary injunction, but this application only sought relief against Respondents 3 to 6 (the Indian parties).
• The trial court ordered the petitioner to serve notice to the foreign respondents (1 & 2) through the Embassy before proceeding with the temporary injunction.
• The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that since no relief was sought against the foreign respondents in the injunction application, the case should proceed against the Indian respondents who had already been served.

Arguments

• Petitioner’s Arguments:
• The temporary injunction application only concerns Respondents 3 to 6.
• No relief is sought against Respondents 1 & 2 in the injunction application.
• The trial court should proceed with the injunction application for the Indian respondents, even if the foreign respondents have not been served.
• Respondents’ Arguments:
• The respondents (3 to 6) were represented and did not object to the limited prayer made by the petitioner.

Key Legal Precedents

Note: The judgment does not explicitly cite any previous case law or specific sections/rules of law. The decision is based on the facts and the court’s discretion regarding procedural fairness and efficiency in civil proceedings.

Judgement

• Decision:
• The High Court accepted the petitioner’s limited prayer.
• The petitioner is allowed to file an application to delete the names of Respondents 1 & 2 from the temporary injunction application.
• The trial court is directed to hear and decide the temporary injunction application on its merits, but only as it relates to Respondents 3 to 6 (the Indian parties).
• The main suit (for damages) will still require service to the foreign respondents, but the temporary injunction can proceed without them.
• The writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the lower court’s order regarding the main suit.

FAQs

Q1: Does this mean the foreign respondents are out of the case?

A: No, the foreign respondents (1 & 2) are still parties to the main suit for damages. They are only being removed from the temporary injunction application, since no relief was sought against them in that application.

Q2: Can the trial court now decide the temporary injunction?

A: Yes, the trial court can proceed to hear and decide the temporary injunction application against Respondents 3 to 6, who have already been served.

Q3: What happens to the main suit?

A: The main suit continues, and the petitioner must still serve the foreign respondents through the Embassy as previously ordered.

Q4: Why did the High Court not interfere with the lower court’s order?

A: The High Court found the lower court’s order appropriate for the main suit but clarified that the temporary injunction could proceed for the Indian respondents only.

Q5: What is the practical impact of this decision?

A: It prevents unnecessary delay in granting temporary relief against Indian parties when foreign parties (against whom no immediate relief is sought) have not yet been served.