2016 (7) TMI 1472 - HC - Indian Laws

Doctrine of forum conveniens - Revocation of leave granted - Held that - The Law is quite settled that the parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction upon a Court. It is not a case where two Courts have jurisdiction of which the parties have elected one. If we see the order passed at the time of granting leave, then there will not be any confusion. The plaintiff has proceeded on the footing that Sholinganallur comes within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. That is why, the averments that the agreement was entered into, the office of the plaintiff is situated within Chennai, the first defendant worked in Chennai and followed by the acceptance of resignation have been taken note of by this Court. Therefore, there is no other way that is available for the plaintiff except to approach the Court, which has got territorial jurisdiction over Sholinganallur. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff that the payments having been made from the bank at Chennai, the suit is maintainable, cannot be countenanced. Admittedly, the second defendant is not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The payment is a mere ministerial or administrative act. It is not a material fact, which requires to be proved leading to the granting of relief in favour of the plaintiff. It is not even a relevant fact. Hence, the submission made in this regard is accordingly rejected. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of leave granted to the plaintiff to institute the suit.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras.
3. Cause of action and its interpretation.
4. Forum conveniens and its applicability.
5. Interpretation of contractual clauses regarding jurisdiction and confidentiality.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Revocation of Leave Granted to the Plaintiff to Institute the Suit:
The application was filed by the second defendant to revoke the leave granted by the court to the plaintiff to institute the suit. The plaintiff's suit sought a permanent injunction against the first defendant from associating with the second defendant, alleging potential misuse of confidential information. The court initially granted leave based on the plaintiff's contentions that the first defendant's appointment letter was issued in Chennai, his salary was paid from a bank in Chennai, and a jurisdiction clause in the contract specified Chennai courts.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras:
The court examined whether it had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff's office, where the first defendant worked and resigned, was located in Sholinganallur, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras. The court noted that the mere fact of consultation with lawyers in Chennai or the signing of an arbitration application in Chennai does not confer jurisdiction. The court emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of parties if it does not inherently exist.

3. Cause of Action and Its Interpretation:
The court delved into the definition of 'cause of action,' noting it as a bundle of facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove to obtain a judgment. It includes facts supporting the plaintiff's right and the infringement of that right. The court referenced various judgments to highlight that cause of action must be material to the suit and the relief sought. In this case, the court found that the material facts giving rise to the cause of action occurred outside its territorial jurisdiction, specifically in Sholinganallur.

4. Forum Conveniens and Its Applicability:
The court applied the doctrine of forum conveniens, which considers the appropriateness or suitability of a forum for the case. The court referenced previous judgments to assert that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction, the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction if another forum is more appropriate. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the forum where the plaintiff's office is located, which is outside the jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras.

5. Interpretation of Contractual Clauses Regarding Jurisdiction and Confidentiality:
The court analyzed Clause 13 of the appointment letter, which specified that disputes would be resolved by courts in Chennai. However, the court clarified that this clause does not apply to the High Court of Madras if the territorial jurisdiction does not inherently exist. The court also examined Clause 8 on confidentiality, noting that any breach would need to be addressed in the appropriate jurisdiction, which is not within the High Court of Madras.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that it lacked territorial jurisdiction as the relevant cause of action occurred outside its jurisdiction. The leave granted to the plaintiff to institute the suit was revoked, and the application seeking leave was dismissed. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the proper jurisdictional boundaries and the doctrine of forum conveniens in such cases.