Choudhary & Ors v Bhatter & Ors (Rev 1)

Choudhary & Ors v Bhatter & Ors (Rev 1)

The English court did not have jurisdiction over Mr Bhatter and Namokar as they were not domiciled in a Member State and Article 22 of the Judgments Regulation does not confer jurisdiction over non-Member State domiciliaries. The claims against Mr Bhatter did not fall within Article 22(2) as they were not proceedings concerning the validity of the company's constitution or decisions of its organs. The interim injunction granted by the High Court was inappropriate as the proper forum for resolving the dispute was the Indian court, and the English court should not intervene in matters under the supervision of the Indian court.

Parties
Claimants/respondents: Chaitan Choudhary and others; Respondents/appellants: Damodar Prasad Bhatter and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Order of High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of 11 February 2009 set aside.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Company Management, Interim Injunctions
Company Law Private International Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Company Management Interim Injunctions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chaitan Choudhary and others

Claimants/respondents

Damodar Prasad Bhatter and others

Respondents/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Order of High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court had jurisdiction over the dispute under Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (Judgments Regulation)
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings fell outside the scope of the Judgments Regulation by reason of Article 1(2)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in granting interim injunctive relief against Mr Bhatter

Ratio Decidendi

The English court did not have jurisdiction over Mr Bhatter and Namokar as they were not domiciled in a Member State and Article 22 of the Judgments Regulation does not confer jurisdiction over non-Member State domiciliaries. The claims against Mr Bhatter did not fall within Article 22(2) as they were not proceedings concerning the validity of the company's constitution or decisions of its organs. The interim injunction granted by the High Court was inappropriate as the proper forum for resolving the dispute was the Indian court, and the English court should not intervene in matters under the supervision of the Indian court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of 11 February 2009 set aside.