Choudhary & Ors v Bhatter & Ors (Rev 1) [2009] EWCA Civ 1176 (11 November 2009)

Choudhary & Ors v Bhatter & Ors (Rev 1) [2009] EWCA Civ 1176 (11 November 2009)

The English court did not have jurisdiction under Article 22 of the Judgments Regulation over Mr Bhatter, who was not domiciled in a Member State, as Article 22 does not apply to defendants outside Member States. The only claim against Mr Bhatter was for compensation under section 92 of the Companies Act 1985, which did not have as its object the validity of the constitution or decisions of the company's organs. The interim injunction granted by the High Court was unnecessary and inappropriate, as the management of the company was already subject to the supervision and orders of the Indian court.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 1176
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 High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of 11 February 2009 set aside.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Judgments Regulation, Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Company Matters, Interim Injunctions, Forum Non Conveniens, Validity of Company Decisions, Service Out of Jurisdiction
Company Law Private International Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Under Judgments Regulation Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Company Matters Interim Injunctions Forum Non Conveniens Validity of Company Decisions +1 more

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 9 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 High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court had jurisdiction under Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (Judgments Regulation) over a dispute involving a company incorporated in England but operating in India, and a defendant not domiciled in a Member State
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings fell outside the scope of the Judgments Regulation by reason of Article 1(2)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the interim injunction granted by the High Court was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The English court did not have jurisdiction under Article 22 of the Judgments Regulation over Mr Bhatter, who was not domiciled in a Member State, as Article 22 does not apply to defendants outside Member States. The only claim against Mr Bhatter was for compensation under section 92 of the Companies Act 1985, which did not have as its object the validity of the constitution or decisions of the company's organs. The interim injunction granted by the High Court was unnecessary and inappropriate, as the management of the company was already subject to the supervision and orders of the Indian court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of 11 February 2009 set aside.

Orders

  • The order of 11 February 2009 granting interim relief is set aside.