9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Plaintiff is that he is the Managing Director of D-1 company and has been so appointed for a period of five years. The company has made borrowings from Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, State Bank of India, M/s. Fidelity Finance Limited and other financiers. D-1 company is heavily indebted. The plaintiff has furnished his properties as security for the loan obtained by D-1 company. The Plaintiff s wife has also furnished her property as security for the loan borrowed by the D-1 company. While so, with a view to defeat the lawful claim of the plaintiff. On 15-5-1998 the defendants 2 to 5 have adopted a Resolution to the effect of removing the plaintiff from the office of the Managing Directorship of D-1 company. The plaintiff has alleged that the Resolution is not true and invalid under law. The defendants are also making arrangements in bringing about another General Body Meeting on 24-6-1998 to remove the plaintiff from Directorship. Plaintiff has filed the suit to declare the impugned Resolution dated 15-5-1998, that sought to remove the plaintiff as Managing Director of the first defendant, as null and void and also for a Decree for Permanent Injunc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since some of the defendants are residing outside the jurisdiction. 7. This application was resisted by the defendants 1 and 2 contending that the impugned Resolution dated 15-5-1998 was passed in the premises of D-1 company at Chennimalai, Erode District. It was alleged that for any suit filed challenging that Resolution, only Erode District would have the jurisdiction, since the cause of action has arisen only within the District of Erode. Objection was also raised on the ground that almost all theDirectors of D-1 company reside and carry on business outside the jurisdiction of Coimbatore Court. It was urged that residence of some of the defendants would not confer jurisdiction upon the Courts at Coimbatore. 8. The Trial Court allowed the application granting permission to the Plaintiff to file the suit at Coimbatore. Pointing out that some of the Directors - D-4, D-5 and D-6 are residing in Coimbatore, the Trial Court found that when the defendants are residing in more than one place, the suit could be filed in Coimbatore. It was further held that if at all in the later stage if the Court finds that the Court has got no jurisdiction, the Court could still have the power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors of D-1 company viz., D-2 and D-3 are residing in Chennimalai, Erode District. Though the first defendant company is having its Factory premises at Mukasipidariur Village, Perundurai Taluk, Chennimalai, D-1 is said to be having its Head Office at 326, Variety Hall Road, Coimbatore. The other Directors, D-4, D-5 and D-6 are residing in Coimbatore. The main contention is that the first defendant company is having business only in Chennimalai and that the Chennimalai is the principal place of business and the suit ought to have been filed in Erode. The merits of this contention is to be considered in the light of section 20( b ), CPC which reads : "20( b ) Any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution, or". 14. The words "actually and voluntarily resides", "carries on business" are important. No doubt, D-1 company carries out manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atore have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This contention does not merit acceptance. Since cause of action means bundle of facts. When part of the cause of action has arisen in Coimbatore, the defendants cannot raise any objection that no part of cause of action has arisen in Coimbatore. 18. In South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises (P.) Ltd. [1996] 3 SCC 443, it has been held : " Cause of action consists of bundle of facts which give cause to enforce the legal injury for redress in a court of law. The cause of action means, therefore, every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to probe in order to support his right to a Judgment of the Court. . . ." (p. 443) 19. Whether any part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the given case. The impugned Resolution though emanates from Chennimalai, it is the result of the associated activities of the D-1 company, which is having its Head Office at Coimbatore. That apart, when certain Directors are also having the residence at Coimbatore, the Court at Coimbatore has jurisdiction to admit the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
