This is an application, seeking for the grant of leave to the applicant to sue the respondents 2 to 4 as defendants in the suit before this court. Notice was ordered on this application to the respondents on 24.4.2008. The respondents are represented through their counsel.
2.A draft plaint is filed along with the application. The prayer in the suit is for a direction to the defendants to pay certain amounts together with interest. Admittedly, excepting for first defendant, all other defendants are outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The first defendant is the head office and the transactions had taken place only with the second respondent, which is having its office at Chandigarh. The plaintiff is a Company having its office at Mumbai.
3.The cause of action as set out in paragraph 60 of the plaint, does not show that any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court.
4.The learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr.K.Moorthy relied upon the decision in AIR 2006 Madras 276 (Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited vs. T.N.Newsprint and Paper Ltd. in support of his contention.
5.In that decision of the Division Bench, its reasoning is set out in paragraph 16 of the said judgment, which is as follows:-
"16.The trial court has negatived the plea relating to lack of jurisdiction apparently on the finding that the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Madras High Court. If the contention of the appellant would be accepted now, it would give rise to two inconsistent decisions. So far as principal amount (subject to the question of adjustment of amount already paid) is concerned, it will be taken as if the Court had jurisdiction, whereas, so far as other contentions are concerned, such as grant of interest at a higher rate and the adjustment of amount paid first towards principal would give rise to another inconsistent finding to the effect that the Madras High Court did not have jurisdiction to deal with the suit in the absence of any leave as contemplated under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Obviously, the Court cannot countenance such a contention which would give rise to two inconsistent conclusions. Therefore, the contention of the appellant, so far as jurisdiction is concerned, is bound to be rejected. ..."
In that case, it was held that if arguments of objectors are accepted, it would lead to two inconsistent decisions and therefore, such contingency can be avoided by granting leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
6.Per contra, the following two decisions were cited by the learned counsel for the respondents:
1)MANU/TN/1926/2003 (Harikumar Rajah Vs. Ashok R.Thakkar
2)(2006)11 SCC 521 (Jindal Vijayanagar Steel (JSW Steel Ltd.) Vs. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Ltd.)
7.The first decision cited supra arose regarding the allotment of shares. This Court found that though it was not a suit for land, but the company is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court and the cause of action arose where allotment of shares were made and hence leave was not granted. It was held that residence of the Directors of the Company or those persons, who have been allotted shares, will not confer jurisdiction.
8.In the second decision before the Supreme Court, the question came up for consideration was the scope of inter-relation between Section 20 CPC and Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that the Letters Patent and CPC operate on different fields. The Supreme Court having considered that the defendant resided within the local limits of Mumbai and the appellant was also having its Corporate office at Mumbai and carrying on business within the Ordinary Original jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court held that the exercise of power under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, for the grant of leave in that case was justified. Hence the principles embodied under Section 20 of the C.P.C. cannot be pressed into service for the grant of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
9.But, in the present case, no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. By making the first respondent, who is having its Corporate Office at Chennai, the applicant cannot create a jurisdiction for this court. It is not a fit case where any leave can be granted solely on the basis of the first respondent having its Corporate Office at Chennai. While the applicant is at Mumbai, the entire cause of action arose in Chandigarh. Therefore, the attempt of the applicant is nothing but forum shopping and no leave can be granted to institute the suit in this court.
10.Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
vvk