Madras HC Paves Way For Private Firm To Proceed With Defamation Suit Filed Against Subramanian Swamy In Singapore High Court

Singapore-based Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Private Limited can now prosecute a defamation suit against ex-Union Minister Subramanian Swamy in a Singaporean court.

This comes after the Madras High Court on Tuesday (25 April) set aside an interim injunction against the firm, which was granted by a single judge in 2014.

The suit has been filed before the High Court of Singapore against Swamy for naming the company in Aircel Maxis scam.

While allowing the Singapore firm’s appeal pending since 2014, Justices S S Sundar and P B Balaji held that the Madras High Court lacks the jurisdiction to grant an anti suit injunction against a foreign entity.

The justices pointed out that the injunction was granted only because the company was a subsidiary of Chennai based Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited.

The Division Bench said the Supreme Court had time and again reiterated that a subsidiary should be considered as a distinct entity in relation to its transactions.

Despite being fully owned by a parent or holding company, a subsidiary would not lose its identity as a separate legal entity and it could not be considered just as a puppet of the parent company merely because of its administration.

“Therefore, we are convinced that the appellant, a foreign company, even though fully owned by the 1st defendant is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this court... The judgment of the learned single judge cannot be approved for the simple reason that he has simply presumed that the appellant is amenable to the jurisdiction of this court as it is a subsidiary of the 1st defendant, an Indian company,” the Bench wrote, reports The Hindu.

Recalling the history of the case, the judges recounted that Swamy addressed a press conference in New Delhi on 26 April 2012 about the Aircel Maxis scam.

Following this, he was sued for defamation in the Singapore High Court, for allegedly harming the consulting firm's reputation. In response, he requested an anti-suit injunction from the Madras High Court.

Swamy had contended that he stood by all his statements made during the press conference and was prepared to face the defamation suit, provided it had been filed in Chennai.

He objected to being compelled to face the suit in Singapore. Arguing that the press conference had taken place in New Delhi, he claimed that the suit should have been filed in India rather than Singapore.

Desisting from answering that question, the judges said, it was up to the High Court of Singapore to decide whether it had the jurisdiction to entertain the defamation suit.

“It will be better if this court expresses no opinion on the issue,” the verdict authored by Justice Sundar read.