HC adjourns to Mar 9 appeal by Singapore firm

Madras High Court today adjourned to March 9 an appeal against the order of a single judge, who made absolute an order of stay on defamation proceedings against BJP leader Subramanian Swamy by a firm in a Singapore court over some charges he allegedly levelled against it on the Aircel-Maxis scam and spectrum allocation.
When the appeal by Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Private Limited came up today before the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M M Sundresh, company counsel sought adjournment for instructions.
The bench then posted the matter to March 9, 2015.
The matter relates to the case filed against Swamy by the company in the High Court of Singapore. The firm had filed a defamation suit against him over a press meet he had held in Delhi on April 26 2012, where he levelled some charges against it on the Aircel-Maxis scam and on spectrum allocation.

Taking exception to the charges, the company had issued a legal notice to Swamy. Later, its Singapore subsidiary initiated defamation proceedings. Swamy filed a contempt of court petition in the Supreme Court, saying he could not be dragged to courts for having filed 2G-related cases in the apex court.
The petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on September 10, 2013. The High Court of Singapore had issued notices to him, saying hearing has been fixed for October 23, 24 and 29 that year.

On October 10 2013, the Madras High Court had stayed proceedings, against which the company moved the court, seeking to stay it, which was made absolute by single judge Justice R S Ramanathan on August 8 2014, who had said it would seriously prejudice Swamy.

Justice Ramanathan, while making the stay absolute, had rejcted the company's plea and pointed out that Chennai-based Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited, whose Singapore subsidiary moved the court there, could have filed the defamation suit in India itself.
The company contended the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it did not have valid reasons on how either of conjunctive tests for grant of an anti-suit injunction had been satisfied.
These two pertained to how Swamy would be put at great disadvantage by proceedings before High Court of Singapore and how they would not be deprived of the legitimate personal or judicial right to proceed with a suit for defamation before the competent court, which is the Singapore court.

In this case, Swamy had raised only vague pleas of prejudice being caused and of 'arm-twisting' and no concrete grounds for it had been adduced nor had any valid reasons been found by the learned judge, the company contended.
As such, no justification has been provided for why such proceedings would be so harsh, oppressive and vexatious that it would justify depriving them the right to sue in Singapore, the forum where they operate and where they had suffered loss of reputation, the company said.