Calcutta High Court
Pidilite Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Sanjib Paul & Ors on 9 December, 2009
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
GA No. 3225 of 2009
CS No. 158 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
PIDILITE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.
Versus
SANJIB PAUL & ORS.
Appearance:
Mr. Moinak Bose, Adv.
..For the defendant no.1.
Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Adv.
..For the plaintiff.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date : 9th December, 2009.
The Court : This is an application for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent; in the alternative for dismissal of the suit; in the further alternative for the plaint to be rejected.
The first defendant applicant says that no part of the plaintiff's alleged cause of action against the first defendant has arisen within jurisdiction and that it would be evident that the plaintiff does not have any cause of action against the first defendant and the plaint does not disclose any.
No case has been made out for revocation of leave on the ground of balance of convenience.
The first defendant carries on business in Howrah which is just across the river.
2
The averments in the plaint demonstrate that a part of the cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction. The claim of the plaintiff is that the third defendant colluded and conspired with the first and second defendants to cause credits to be reflected in the accounts between the plaintiff and the first and second defendants. It is averred in the plaint that the first and second defendants' accounts with the plaintiff showed more payments than had been actually tendered by such defendants. Particulars of fraud have been pleaded and the plaintiff has sought a decree in the sum of Rs.90.69 lakh.
The first defendant has also relied on a Forum Selection Clause contained in the bills that were raised by the plaintiff on the first defendant. The relevant clause reads as follows:
"In case of legal dispute the Forum shall always be Mumbai."
The dispute that is referred to in the Forum Selection Clause would be qua the individual bill. In any event the Forum Selection Clause, notwithstanding its use of the word 'always', is vague in the sense that it does not specify the particular Court in Mumbai that would be exclusively entitled to receive any action in respect of the bill. Further, the plaintiff's cause of action is on account of alleged fraud committed by the defendants upon colluding and conspiring with each other. The plaintiff's claim is not founded merely on the bill or the bills raised by the plaintiff on the first defendant. Further, the plaintiff's action against the other defendants will not be subject to the forum selection clause.
There is no merit in the application and neither can the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be revoked on the basis of the averments in the plaint nor can it be said that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the first defendant or the plaint does not disclose any.
3
GA No.3225 of 2009 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) Bp.
A.R(C.R)