9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond 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. - Application No. 6668 of 2015 in CS No. 697 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2016 - M.M. Sundresh, J. For the Appellant : G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel for Rajnish Pathiyil For the Respondents : Sanjay Mohan for Kandaswamy ORDER M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. This application is filed by the applicant/second defendant to revoke the leave granted to the first respondent/plaintiff by this Court in A. No. 5574 of 2015 dated 18.08.2015 to institute C.S. No. 697 of 2015. For the sake of brevity, the plaintiff and the defendants in C.S. No. 697 of 2015 are arrayed as such. 2. The Facts in Brief:-- 2.1. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing, erecting and commissioning of Wind Turbines and development of wind power as well as solar power projects for its customers in various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his salary was paid and the place of work of the first defendant was at Chennai; and (iii) as per Clause 13, the jurisdiction to resolve a dispute would be Courts in Chennai. Considering the submissions made, this Court, by an order dated 18.08.2015, has passed the following order. This Application is filed to grant leave to the Applicant to sue the Respondents as Defendants 1 to 4 in the above suit. 2. Heard Mr. P.S. Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. The Applicant as the Plaintiff seeks to file the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from associating himself with Defendant No. 2 including Defendant No. 3 and its other directors/officials in any manner whatever and in any capacity whatever and from acting on behalf of the Defendant No. 2 including Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and its other directors/officials till the final conclusion and disposal of the ongoing dispute arising out of the Multi-Annual Agreement dated 04.05.2011, Addendum A dated 04.05.2011, Amendment dated 30.09.2011 and Supplementary Agreement dated 25.04.2013, the Purchase Orders/Project Agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , finance, dealings or other business information disclosed to you by the Company either directly or indirectly in writing, orally or by drawings or observation of parts or equipment. In the course of your employment with the Company, you may be privy to Confidential Information relating to the Company including trade secrets and intellectual property rights. You shall not, directly or indirectly, during the Term or thereafter, reveal, disclose or make known to any person or entity or use for your own benefit or the benefit of any third person any Confidential Information of the Company acquired during the course of employment. You shall not use or attempt to use any such information in any manner which may injure or cause loss, directly or indirectly to the company or any of its affiliated group companies. Upon the termination of your employment, you will be required to surrender to the Company all books, materials, papers, documents and any other property entrusted to you in the course of employment. The confidentiality obligations herein survive the termination of employment with the Company for an indefinite period thereafter............. 13. CHOICE OF LAW AND FORUM: T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel further contended that the payment to the first defendant was made by way of salary from the bank situated at Chennai. Therefore, the said fact would constitute the cause of action and hence, the suit is maintainable. The Court will have to see the averments made in the plaint alone at this stage. Therefore, the leave granted is required to be sustained. In support of his contention, reliance has been made on the following judgments. 1. A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd., v. A.P. Agencies, Salem (1989-1-L.W. 449 : (1989 AIR 1239); 2. Laxman Prasad v. Prodigy Electronics Ltd., and another (2008-3-L.W. 1 : (2008)1 SCC 618); 3. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., rep. By Chief Executive Officer, A. Abdul Rahman v. Anjaney International Co., Ltd., Alex Stewart Assayers Ltd., and Spices Trading Corporation Ltd., 4. The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society, rep. By its Chairman v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, Rep. By its Chairperson/Managing Trustee (2012-4-L.W. 385) 5. Boston Scientific International BV and Ors. v. Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 6. Bhagwandas Metals Ltd., v. Raghavendra Agencies and L.S. Dwarakanath and 7. Sri Dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue or a relevant fact. It has got no relationship with the case of a defendant. Such a fact shall not be equated with the evidence, which is necessary to prove a fact. A cause of action would include not only the right of the plaintiff, but also, the facts disclosing the infringement of its right. Therefore, the facts which are in support of its right and leading to infringement would form cause of action. Thus, what is important is that a fact will have to be material to the suit and the relief. Therefore, all facts, which are not material, would not constitute cause of action. There has to be an existence or infraction coupled with the right. 7.2. It is nothing but bundle of facts, which, when added with the law applicable provide the adequate right to the plaintiff's relief. In a suit relates to a breach of contract, the making of a contract and its breach would be the proper cause of action. Therefore, the place in which it occurred would be very relevant. Thus, the fact which is remotely connected to another which forms a cause of action cannot be one, just for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to a Court. Similarly, termination of a contract would certainly create ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossession against another defendant in respect of another item which they claimed as part of the same inheritance. It was contended that the later suit was barred by Section 43, Civil P.C. In dealing with that contention, Bhashyam Aiyangar J. made the following pertinent remarks at p. 105: The former suit was instituted against the de-fondant therein, by reason of his wrongfully withholding from the plaintiffs, on the death of their mother, possession of the land in Schedule B, and the present suit is brought on the defendants herein similarly withholding the land comprised in schedule A, the defendants in both the cases having respectively come into possession of the lands comprised in schedules B and A under separate alienations made by the mother in favour of each on a different occasion. It will thus be seen that though the ground of title is one and the same in both the suits and the cause of action in respect of both arose at the same time, viz., the date of the mother's death, yet the persons who wrongfully withheld the land in schedule A are quite different and there was no manner of combination or privity between them in respect of the lands which they severally withh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his acts preceding the suit. A 'cause of action' is not a theoretical term entirely picked up from text books and placed on a plaint. In cases of torts, the right of the plaintiff and its infringement by the defendant will generally make up the 'cause of action'. In --'Williams v. Morland', (1824) 107 ER 620 (210), cited by Bowen L. J. in -- 'Bransden v. Humphrey', (1885) 14 QBD 141 (Z11), Little-dale J. said 'Generally speaking, there must be a temporal loss or damage accruing from the wrongful act of another, in order to entitle a party to maintain an action on the case.' Order 7, Rule 5 (Act 5 of 1908) is based on the same principle. It is as follows : The plaint shall show that the defendant is or claims to be interested in the subject matter and that he is liable to be called upon to answer the plaintiff's demand. 'Now in the present case the defendants' connection with the land in suit is wholly different from his connection with the lands covered by the other sides both in point of time and the subject matter of the alienations. Their act of infringement of the plaintiffs' right qua the property in suit is ' differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of discretion under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and has enunciated the following legal principles: a) that the application lies for revoking the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent; b) that such an application should be made at an early stage of the suit and delay and acquiescence may be a bar to such an application; c) that if the application depends on difficult questions of law or fact, the Court should not revoke leave on a summary application but should decide the question at the trial; d) that if the defendant shows clearly that no part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, the leave should be revoked as a matter of course; e) that if only a part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, then it is a question of discretion for the Court to give or refuse leave or where leave has already been granted to revoke or maintain the leave;........ g) that in giving or refusing leave or maintaining or revoking leave, the Court will ordinarily take into consideration the balance of convenience and may, if the balance is definitely in favour of the defendant, apply the doctrine of forum conveniens; h) that the Court may refus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts. Unfortunately, Sholinganallur does not come within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the entire cause of action arises outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, applying the principles noted above, there is no territorial jurisdiction available to this Court. The mere fact that the first defendant came to Chennai and consulted the Lawyers would not constitute the cause of action and thus, conferring the jurisdiction on this Court. It is only a process of consultation. The consultation may be made at a different place but the same would not give any cause of action. If the said fact is taken as a material one, then it will lead to disastrous consequences conferring the jurisdiction on any Court, in which, the consultation takes place with the Lawyers. Similarly, signing of application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, also does not confer any jurisdiction. 10. Coming to the terms of the Letter of Appointment, Clause 8 can be invoked only by approaching the Court having territorial jurisdiction of Sholinganallur. Reliance has been made on Clause 13, which speaks about the jurisdiction being vested with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
