WestBridge Ventures II v. Anupam Mittal: Contempt of Court for Anti-Suit Injunction Disobedience

In WestBridge Ventures II Investment Holdings v Anupam Mittal, the Singapore High Court found Anupam Mittal in contempt of court for disobeying an anti-suit injunction (ASI) issued by the court. The ASI restrained Mittal from pursuing legal proceedings in India related to the management of People Interactive (India) Private Limited. The court determined that Mittal had breached the ASI by continuing proceedings in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and commencing an application in the Bombay High Court. The court imposed a fine of $70,000 on Mittal, conditional on him purging his contempt within one month by discontinuing the Indian proceedings.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Defendant found guilty of contempt of court and fined $70,000, conditional on purging contempt within one month.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court finds Anupam Mittal in contempt for disobeying an anti-suit injunction, pursuing legal actions in India despite court order.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Anupam MittalDefendantIndividualContempt of CourtLost
Westbridge Ventures II Investment HoldingsPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
S MohanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Pradeep NairWong & Leow LLC
Yiu Kai TaiWong & Leow LLC
Nandakumar Ponniya ServaiWong & Leow LLC
Ashish ChughWong & Leow LLC
Yap Yong LiWong & Leow LLC
Thio Shen YiTSMP Law Corporation
Tan May Lian FeliciaTSMP Law Corporation
Juliana Lake (Lu Zhixuan)TSMP Law Corporation
Uma Jitendra SharmaTSMP Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The defendant commenced proceedings in the NCLT in Mumbai, India.
  2. The plaintiff obtained an anti-suit injunction (ASI) restraining the defendant from pursuing the NCLT proceedings.
  3. The defendant sought adjournments of the NCLT proceedings after the ASI was granted.
  4. The defendant filed an application in the Bombay High Court to amend a suit and seek an injunction.
  5. The plaintiff applied for leave to commence committal proceedings against the defendant for breaching the ASI.
  6. The defendant applied to set aside the leave granted to the plaintiff to commence committal proceedings.
  7. The court found that the defendant's actions breached the ASI.

5. Formal Citations

  1. WestBridge Ventures II Investment Holdings v Anupam Mittal, Originating Summons No 242 of 2021 (Summonses Nos 1119 and 2090 of 2022), [2022] SGHC 270

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Shareholders’ Agreement signed
Defendant commenced NCLT proceedings
Plaintiff filed HC/OS 242/2021 for permanent ASI and HC/SUM 1183/2021 for interim ASI
Interim ASI granted ex parte in HC/ORC 1463/2021
Defendant filed Suit 95 and IA 1010 in Bombay High Court
Permanent ASI granted in HC/ORC 6040/2021
ORC 6040 served on defendant's solicitors
Defendant filed IA 2827 to amend Suit 95
Bombay High Court passed order in IA 2827
Plaintiff filed Appeal (L) No 30851 of 2021 in Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court granted reliefs sought in IA 2827
Plaintiff applied for leave to commence committal proceedings vide HC/SUM 767/2022 and filed Statement of Committal
Leave granted to plaintiff to commence committal proceedings in ORC 1454
Plaintiff filed SUM 1119 for order of committal
Defendant's solicitors proposed adjournment of SUM 1119 hearing
Defendant filed SUM 2090 to set aside ORC 1454
Oral hearing before S Mohan J
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Anti-Suit Injunction
    • Outcome: The court held that the defendant breached the anti-suit injunction by continuing proceedings in the NCLT and commencing proceedings in the Bombay High Court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Continuing proceedings in foreign jurisdiction despite injunction
      • Commencing new legal proceedings in foreign jurisdiction despite injunction
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] SGHC 244
  2. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court found the defendant guilty of contempt of court for intentionally disobeying the anti-suit injunction.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Intentional disobedience of court order
      • Failure to comply with anti-suit injunction
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 3 SLR 1
      • [2018] 4 SLR 828
  3. Material Non-Disclosure in Ex Parte Application
    • Outcome: The court held that there were no material non-disclosures that warranted setting aside the ex parte grant of leave to commence committal proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Omission of relevant facts in application for leave to commence committal proceedings
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994
  4. Defects in Statement of Committal
    • Outcome: The court held that there were no defects in the Statement of Committal that warranted setting aside the ex parte grant of leave to commence committal proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to particularize breach of court order
      • Reliance on information outside the four corners of the statement
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 3 SLR 1

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order of Committal
  2. Fine
  3. Imprisonment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court
  • Breach of Injunction

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Injunctions
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings v Anupam MittalHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 244SingaporeThe judgment in this case granted the anti-suit injunction (ASI) that the defendant was found to have breached in the current judgment. The current judgment directly relies on the findings and orders made in this prior judgment.
Aero-Gate Pte Ltd v Engen Marine Engineering Pte LtdHigh CourtNo[2018] SGHC 267SingaporeCited regarding the court's power to grant leave for a plaintiff to rely on grounds not set out in the Statement of Committal at the committal hearing, but distinguished on the facts.
Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan YaoCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the principles governing the interpretation and requirements of a Statement of Committal in contempt proceedings, including the need for sufficient particularity.
PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2018] 4 SLR 828SingaporeCited for the two-step approach in assessing contempt of court, the standard of proof, and the low threshold for mens rea.
Erinford Properties Ltd and another v Cheshire County CouncilEnglish Court of AppealNo[1974] Ch 261England and WalesReferenced in relation to the type of injunction that the defendant could have sought.
PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtNo[2015] 5 SLR 873SingaporeCited as an example of a case where the court used both mandatory and prohibitory language in an anti-suit injunction.
Mobile Telecommunications Company Ltd v HRH Prince Hussam bin Saudi bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (t/a Saudi Plastic Factory)English High CourtNo[2018] EWHC 1469 (Comm)England and WalesCited as an example of a case where the court included both prohibitory and mandatory directions in an anti-suit injunction.
Mobile Telecommunications Co KSC v HRH Prince Hussam Bin Abdulaziz Au SaudEnglish High CourtNo[2018] EWHC 3749 (Comm)England and WalesCited for its discussion on the interpretation of mandatory language in anti-suit injunctions.
Ecom Agroindustrial Corp Ltd v Mosharaf Composite Textile Mill LtdEnglish High CourtNo[2013] EWHC 1276 (Comm)England and WalesReferenced as a case where it was observed that a court should be more cautious before ordering a mandatory injunction.
Evergreen Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Fast Shipping & Transportation Co LtdEnglish High CourtNo[2014] EWHC 4893 (QB)England and WalesReferenced as a case where the court noted that it is only right to grant mandatory relief exceptionally.
Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine LtdCourt of AppealYes[2013] 2 SLR 246SingaporeCited for the principle that the court will not adopt a myopic view of the scope of an order and that the purpose for which the order was granted will guide the court's determination of its true effect.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony SabastianHigh CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 245SingaporeCited for the principle that the court is not strictly confined to the express terms of the order when determining the purpose of the court in granting the order in criminal contempt proceedings.
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and othersCourt of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 60SingaporeCited for the principle that an injunctee who does not wish to comply with an order must have the order discharged, set aside, or stayed.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and othersCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518SingaporeCited for the principle that an injunctee who does not wish to comply with an order must have the order discharged, set aside, or stayed, and for the test for establishing third party liability for contempt.
Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 491SingaporeCited for the principle that a foreign law expert must present the underlying evidence and analytical process by which their opinion is reached.
State of Orissa v Madan Gopal RungtaSupreme Court of IndiaNo(1952) SCR 28IndiaCited by the defendant's expert to support the argument that an interim relief can be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief.
Attorney-General v Tee Kok BoonHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 412SingaporeCited for the interpretation of the phrase 'institute proceedings' and whether it applies to interlocutory proceedings.
Foy v Foy (No 2)Ontario Court of AppealNo(1979) 26 OR (2d) 220CanadaCited for the observations made by Blair JA on the interpretation of the phrase 'instituted vexatious legal proceedings'.
Tjong Very Sumito and others v Antig Investments Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 732SingaporeCited for the principle that the phrase 'arising out of or in connection with' has a wide ambit.
Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Government of the Islamic Republic of PakistanHigh CourtYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 184SingaporeCited for the principle that words of broad import such as 'in connection with this contract' are to be given their natural meaning.
Gulf Hibiscus Ltd v Rex International Holding Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 210SingaporeCited for the principle that the phrase 'arising under, out of or relating [to]' an agreement is a very wide one.
John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and othersCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 428SingaporeCited for the principle that in granting an ASI, the court is simply enforcing the contractual promise made between parties.
PT Karya Indo Batam v Wang Zhenwen and others (Wang Zhenwen and others, third parties)High CourtNo[2021] 5 SLR 1381SingaporeCited for the principle that issues raised and reliefs sought in parallel/related proceedings can be relevant when determining whether an ASI ought to be granted.
Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 1097SingaporeCited for the principle that in deciding whether there is a lis alibi pendens, the first legal port of call ought to be the identity of the parties and the causes of action concerned.
The “Vasiliy Golovnin”Court of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 994SingaporeCited for the principle that in ex parte proceedings, a fact should be disclosed if it is a matter that the court should take into consideration in making its decision.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Anti-Suit Injunction
  • Contempt of Court
  • Committal Proceedings
  • NCLT
  • Bombay High Court
  • Shareholders’ Agreement
  • Material Non-Disclosure
  • Statement of Committal
  • Purging Contempt

15.2 Keywords

  • contempt of court
  • anti-suit injunction
  • committal proceedings
  • Singapore High Court
  • NCLT
  • Bombay High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contempt of Court95
Anti-suit injunction90
Injunctions90
Disobedience of order of court85
Civil Procedure70
Sentencing60
Arbitration60
Jurisdiction50
Shareholders Agreement40
Company Law30

16. Subjects

  • Contempt of Court
  • Injunctions
  • Civil Procedure
  • Arbitration