Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra: Anti-Suit Injunction & Natural Forum Dispute

In Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed an appeal by Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar against the High Court's decision to dismiss her application for an anti-suit injunction. The injunction sought to restrain Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra from continuing proceedings in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) regarding the ownership of a share in Million Dragon Wealth Ltd. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding Singapore to be the natural forum for the dispute and that Jhaveri's pursuit of the BVI proceedings was vexatious and oppressive. The court considered the degree of overlap in the BVI and Singapore proceedings, the location of witnesses, and the subject matter of the dispute.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal addresses an anti-suit injunction application, focusing on the natural forum and vexatious conduct in a BVI share ownership dispute.

1.7 Decision Date

25 July 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar	Appellant, Plaintiff	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Jaikanth Shankar of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Kanapathi Pillai Nirumalan of Niru & Co LLC Liew Teck Huat of Niru & Co LLC Gerald Paul Seah of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Davinder Singh of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Jaspreet Singh Sachdev of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra	Respondent, Defendant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Tham Lijing of Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice) Leong Yi-Ming of Allen & Gledhill LLP Toby Landau of Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice) Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy of Allen & Gledhill LLP Koh Zhen-Xi, Benjamin of Allen & Gledhill LLP Lim Min Li Amanda of Allen & Gledhill LLP
Million Dragon Wealth Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	No specific outcome	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Steven Chong	Judge of Appeal	Yes
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Judge	No
Woo Bih Li	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Jaikanth Shankar	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Kanapathi Pillai Nirumalan	Niru & Co LLC
Liew Teck Huat	Niru & Co LLC
Gerald Paul Seah	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Davinder Singh	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Jaspreet Singh Sachdev	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Tham Lijing	Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice)
Leong Yi-Ming	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Toby Landau	Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice)
Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Koh Zhen-Xi, Benjamin	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Lim Min Li Amanda	Allen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

The respondent and Mr Anil had a longstanding business relationship since the late 1980s.
The dispute concerns the ownership of a single share in a BVI-incorporated company, Million Dragon Wealth Ltd.
Prior to July 2014, the Share was registered in the name of the respondent’s daughter, Ms Pooja, as the respondent’s nominee.
On 8 July 2014, Ms Pooja executed a memorandum transferring the Share to Mr Anil for the nominal sum of US$1.
Mr Anil commenced Suit 821 in Singapore against the respondent in August 2015.
In Suit 821, Mr Anil claims that he had entered into the 2003 Agreement with the respondent following discussions in Hong Kong.
The respondent denies the existence of the 2003 Agreement and claims he was responsible for the development of Newton Imperial.
In May 2017, the respondent commenced proceedings against the estate and MDWL in the BVI.
In BVI 83, the respondent claims that he is the sole beneficial owner of the Share pursuant to the 2014 Agreement.
The appellant filed Originating Summons No 627 of 2017 in the Singapore High Court for an anti-suit injunction.

5. Formal Citations

Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra, Civil Appeal No 18 of 2018, [2019] SGCA 42

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2014-05-14	Letter of demand sent to the respondent to return the 22 units in Newton Imperial.
2014-07-08	Ms Pooja executed a memorandum transferring the Share to Mr Anil.
2015-08-01	Mr Anil commenced Suit 821 in Singapore against the respondent.
2016-01-01	Mr Anil passed away.
2017-05-15	Appellant's solicitors wrote to the court informing that the appellant and Ms Chandana were on the brink of a settlement.
2017-05-16	The respondent commenced proceedings against the estate and MDWL in the BVI.
2017-06-01	The appellant filed Originating Summons No 627 of 2017 in the Singapore High Court for an anti-suit injunction.
2017-12-01	The High Court Judge dismissed the appellant’s application for an anti-suit injunction.
2018-02-22	The Judge delivered his decision for OS 1293.
2018-04-01	The respondent obtained leave from the BVI courts to serve BVI 83 out of jurisdiction.
2018-05-01	Service of BVI 83 was effected on the appellant.
2018-07-10	The appellant filed an application in BVI 83 for setting aside the service out of jurisdiction.
2019-02-01	Justice Neville Adderley of the BVI High Court of Justice dismissed the appellant’s stay application.
2019-04-01	Adderley J issued his grounds of decision.
2019-05-02	Appeal hearing.
2019-07-26	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Natural Forum
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that Singapore is the natural forum for the dispute.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] 2 SLR 196
  - [2011] 1 SLR 391
  - [2017] 2 SLR 265
Anti-Suit Injunction
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal granted the anti-suit injunction against the respondent.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1987] 1 AC 871
  - [2009] 4 SLR(R) 428
Vexatious or Oppressive Conduct
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the respondent had acted in a vexatious or oppressive manner in pursuing BVI 83.
- Category: Substantive
Comity
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that comity principles did not preclude the granting of the anti-suit injunction.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
  - [1999] 1 AC 119
Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the fact that a foreign court has declined to stay its proceedings does not give rise to an issue estoppel.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1996] 2 All ER 847

8. Remedies Sought

Anti-Suit Injunction
Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
Account of Rental Payments
Damages for Breach of Contract

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Breach of Trust

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Injunctions
Cross-border disputes

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Société Nationale Industrielle Aero-Spatiale v Lee Kui Jak and another	Privy Council	Yes	[1987] 1 AC 871	United Kingdom	Cited for the general principles governing anti-suit injunctions, including the requirement that the 'ends of justice' require it and that the order is directed against the parties, not the foreign court.
John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and others	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 428	Singapore	Cited for the five factors relevant to the court's determination of whether to grant an anti-suit injunction.
Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae Woo	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 196	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the natural forum is the forum with which the dispute has the most real and substantial connection.
JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises Ltd	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2011] 1 SLR 391	Singapore	Cited for the five connecting factors relevant in the identification of the natural forum for the dispute.
Rappo, Tania v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appeal	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 265	Singapore	Cited to emphasize that it is the quality of the connecting factors that is crucial in the natural forum analysis, rather than the quantity of factors on each side of the scale.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd and another v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the location and compellability of witnesses as a factor in the determination of the natural forum takes on a greater significance where the main dispute between the parties is largely factual in nature.
Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and another appeal	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 1097	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court ought not to hold that similar issues are brought before both the local and foreign court by focusing merely on the reliefs sought.
Desert Sun Loan Corp v Hill	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 2 All ER 847	United Kingdom	Cited for the proposition that an issue estoppel can arise from a judgment of a foreign court on interlocutory matters.
Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel and others	House of Lords	Yes	[1999] 1 AC 119	United Kingdom	Cited to highlight that two different approaches may be discerned from the case law as to the circumstances in which an anti-suit injunction may be granted.
British Airways Board v Laker Airways Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1985] AC 58	United Kingdom	Cited as an example of a case where an anti-suit injunction was not granted because the party seeking it had voluntarily submitted to the foreign jurisdiction's laws.
Midland Bank plc v Laker Airways Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1986] QB 689	United Kingdom	Cited as an example of a case where an anti-suit injunction was granted because the relevant transaction was overwhelmingly English in character.
Amchem Products Inc v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board)	Supreme Court of Canada	Yes	[1993] 1 RCS 897	Canada	Cited for the principle that comity requires that where the foreign court has declined to stay its proceedings, an anti-suit injunction should only be granted where the foreign court assumed jurisdiction on a basis that is inconsistent with principles relating to forum non conveniens.
Barclays Bank plc v Homan and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] BCLC 680	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that both comity and common sense suggest that the foreign judge is usually the best person to decide whether in his own court he should accept or decline jurisdiction, stay proceedings or allow them to continue.
Deutsche Bank AG and another v Highland Crusader Offshore Partners LP and others	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 WLR 1023	United Kingdom	Cited for the principles applicable in anti-suit injunction applications, including the restraining influence of considerations of comity.
AQN v AQO	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 523	Singapore	Cited as a local decision where an anti-suit injunction was granted notwithstanding the wife’s unsuccessful attempt to stay the US proceedings on grounds of forum non conveniens.
Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 732	Singapore	Cited to emphasize that comity has greater relevance where the application for an anti-suit injunction is taken out at a late stage of the proceedings especially where the foreign court had already issued a judgment.
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra and another	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 90	Singapore	The High Court decision that was appealed in this case. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court's finding that the issues in BVI 83 and Suit 821 are different.
Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra and others v Salgaocar Anil Vassudeva and others	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 689	Singapore	Cited to show that the court has acknowledged that the estate’s claim in Suit 821 does not extend to a proprietary interest in the assets of the SPVs.
Castanho v Brown & Root (UK) Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1981] AC 557	United Kingdom	Cited as the case that was departed from in Aerospatiale, regarding the applicable principles in anti-suit injunctions.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Orders 7 and 28 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Section 4(1) of the Civil Law Act	Singapore
Section 18(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Anti-suit injunction
Natural forum
Vexatious or oppressive conduct
Comity
Issue estoppel
2003 Agreement
2014 Agreement
Million Dragon Wealth Ltd
Newton Imperial
Share transfer

15.2 Keywords

Anti-suit injunction
Natural forum
BVI proceedings
Share ownership
Singapore Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Natural forum	90
Restraint of foreign proceedings	90
Injunctions	90
Civil Procedure	80
Vexatious and oppressive conduct	80
Comity	70
Private International Law	70
Estoppel	40
Contract Law	30
Arbitration	30

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Conflict of Laws
Injunctions