2004 (3) TMI 25 - HC - Income Tax

By this chamber summons, the defendant prays that leave granted by this court under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, in favour of the plaintiff, to institute the above numbered suit be revoked and consequently, the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate court - I have no hesitation in taking the view that the fact the plaint was lodged/filed/presented before the authorised officer of this court prior to obtaining leave under clause 12 of this court, will make no difference; whereas, it is only upon numbering of the suit, the suit can be said to have been received by this court-and as it is not disputed that before that event had happened, this court had already granted leave under clause 12. Accordingly, there is no substance in the argument canvassed on behalf of the defendant that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff - Chamber summons dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and cause of action in Mumbai.
2. Doctrine of "forum convenience."
3. Post-facto grant of leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Cause of Action in Mumbai:
The defendant argued that no part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, thus challenging the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The plaintiff contended that part of the cause of action did arise in Mumbai, citing various transactions and tax deductions that took place there. The court examined the plaint as a whole, referencing multiple paragraphs that detailed the involvement of Mumbai in the transactions and tax issues. The court relied on precedents such as Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa, which emphasize reading the plaint as a whole to determine the cause of action. The court concluded that a material part of the cause of action did arise in Mumbai, validating the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.

2. Doctrine of "Forum Convenience":
The defendant contended that the leave granted should be revoked based on the doctrine of "forum convenience," arguing undue hardship in defending the suit in Mumbai. The plaintiff countered that no substantial case was made for invoking this doctrine, pointing out that the defendant was already contesting other suits in India and had previously operated an office in Mumbai. The court found the defendant's arguments insufficient, noting that mere inconvenience or expense is not enough to invoke the doctrine. The court referenced cases like Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal and Ramji Dayawala and Sons P. Ltd. v. Invest Import, which establish that distance or expense alone does not justify invoking "forum convenience." The court concluded that no strong case was made to revoke the leave on this ground.

3. Post-Facto Grant of Leave under Clause 12:
The defendant argued that the suit was lodged before obtaining leave under clause 12, which should render it invalid. The plaintiff argued that the distinction between lodging and receiving a plaint should be considered, referencing Union Bank of India v. Sunpac Corporation, which differentiates between "lodging/filing/presentation" and "admission/acceptance" of a plaint. The court agreed with this interpretation, stating that the suit was only "received" after it was numbered, which occurred after the leave was granted. The court found that the leave was validly granted before the suit was officially "received," thus dismissing the defendant's argument.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the chamber summons, affirming that:
- The cause of action did partially arise in Mumbai, validating the jurisdiction.
- The doctrine of "forum convenience" was not applicable due to insufficient grounds.
- The leave under clause 12 was validly granted before the suit was officially received, making the post-facto argument inapplicable.

The chamber summons was dismissed with costs, and the court found no tangible reason to revoke the order granting leave under clause 12.

← Previous Next →