IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 12.01.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. AUTHINATHAN O.S.A.No.350 of 2013 LLOYDS REGISTER ASIA, Unit No.1, 3rd floor, No.19, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 Appellant Vs TITANIUM EQUIPMENT AND ANODE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED, Rep by Authorised Signatory S. Ramanujam Team House, GST Salai, Vandalur, Chennai-600 048 Respondent Appeal filed Under Order 36 R.1 of Original Side Rules r/w clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge made in Application No.192 of 2007 dated 30.03.2010 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.S. Sethuraman For respondent : Mr. Satish Parasaran JUDGMENT [Judgment of the court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The appellant is the sole defendant in the suit in C.S. No.809 of 2006 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. That suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.53,61,000/- with interest from the defendant 2. Before the learned Single Judge, the defendant filed an application in O.A.No.192 of 2007, seeking to reject the plaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that as per the terms of agreement entered into between the parties, any suit or any further claim could be made in a Court in United Kingdom and that this Court has got no jurisdiction. The learned Judge has held that it is a question of fact of law whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not and therefore, plaint cannot be rejected. The learned Single Judge further held that question of jurisdiction can be gone into by framing appropriate issues in the suit itself. In our considered view, in the light of the said view taken by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any infirmity in the order. The learned Single Judge relied on a decision in the case of Modi Entertainment Network and another vs W.S.G Cricket PTE Ltd,) reported in 2003 (4) 341, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the burden of establishing that the forum of choice is a forum non-convenience of the proceedings therein or oppressive or vexatious would be on the party so contending to aver and prove the same. In the instant case, the disputed facts are to be decided by framing appropriate issues before the learned Single Judge. The defendant need not feel aggrieved because the learned Single Judge has not rejected the claim of the defendant on the question of jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge has left it open. We are not inclined to entertain the same. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(S.N.J.,) (N.A.N.J.
12-01-2017 Index : Yes Internet : Yes sr
S.NAGAMUTHU,J.
And
N. AUTHINATHAN,J.,
sr To The Sub Assistant Registrar, (Original Side), High Court, Chennai.
O.S.A No.350 2013 12-01-2017 http://www.judis.nic.in