Anti-Suit Injunctions In India: Jurisdictional Control In Transnational Litigation Under Private International Law

Authors

  • Berdhin Shaliya.S.F.M Author
    Competing Interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing financial, professional, institutional, or personal interests, relationships, or affiliations that could reasonably be perceived to have influenced the conduct of the research, the interpretation of the findings, or the preparation and publication of this manuscript.

  • Remish Immanuel.R Author
    Competing Interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing financial, professional, institutional, or personal interests, relationships, or affiliations that could reasonably be perceived to have influenced the conduct of the research, the interpretation of the findings, or the preparation and publication of this manuscript.

Keywords:

Anti-Suit Injunctions, Private International Law, Forum Shopping, Arbitration and Transnational Litigation

Abstract

In today’s world of globalization and international business dealings, disputes often involve multiple jurisdictions, leading to complex issues in Private International Law (PIL). Anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) have become an important legal tool to manage transnational litigation effectively. This paper looks at how Indian courts use ASIs to handle transnational disputes, focusing on the question: How can anti-suit injunctions balance jurisdiction control, fairness, and international respect within India’s PIL framework? Anti-suit injunctions work by stopping parties from starting or continuing cases in foreign courts. This approach helps prevent parallel litigation, forum shopping, and misuse of the legal process, while also respecting the sovereignty of foreign courts. Rooted in fairness, ASIs are discretionary and granted only when oppressive or unreasonable behavior threatens justice. The study reviews key Indian cases, including Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket (2003), Y. Narasimha Rao v. Venkata Lakshmi, and Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd. V. Indian Oil Corporation . It also offers views from the United Kingdom, which takes an equitable approach, the United States, which focuses on protecting jurisdiction, and Singapore, which has a supportive framework for arbitration. The paper examines modern challenges like injunctions related to arbitration, cross-border e-commerce disputes, conflicts over intellectual property, and issues with technology-driven jurisdiction. It assesses whether current PIL practices are adequate. The argument is that ASIs play a vital role in ensuring fairness and respect for contracts. There is a need for clearer legal standards and possibly codifying Private International Law in India. By analysing case law, comparative viewpoints, and legal critique, this study adds to the understanding of fair jurisdictional remedies in India’s changing landscape of transnational litigation.

Author Biographies

  • Berdhin Shaliya.S.F.M

    Final year of LLB, Vinayaka Mission's Law School, Chennai.

  • Remish Immanuel.R

    Final year of LLB, Vinayaka Mission's Law School, Chennai

Downloads

Published

2026-07-28

How to Cite

Anti-Suit Injunctions In India: Jurisdictional Control In Transnational Litigation Under Private International Law. (2026). International Journal of Law, Culture & Society, 2(1). https://www.ijlcs.in/Journal/index.php/ijlcs/article/view/30

Similar Articles

1-10 of 58

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.