Bombay High Court
Summit Partners L.P vs The Bank Of New York Mellon on 31 July, 2014
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Mohit S. Shah, M.S.Sonak
1 APP.207.2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.207 OF 2014
IN
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1945 OF 2011
IN
SUIT NO.2865 OF 2011
Summit Partners L.P. Appellant
versus
The Bank of New York Mellon,
London Branch and others Respondents
Mr.Darius Khambata, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Aditya Mehta, Mr.Vyapak
Desai, Mr.Prateek Bagaria, Mr.Ashish Kabra i/by Nishith Desai
Associates for Appellant.
Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Navroze Seervai, Sr.
Advocate, Mr.Rahul Narichania, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajendra
Barot, Mr.Swagata Naik, Mr.Divij Kishore i/by AZB & Partners for
Respondent no.1.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND
M.S.SONAK, J.
Date of reserving the judgment : 1 July 2014
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 31 July 2014
JUDGMENT (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE)
This appeal is directed against the order dated 16 April 2014 of ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 2 APP.207.2014 the learned Trial Judge of this Court dismissing Chamber Summons No.1945 of 2011 taken out by the Appellant (Defendant no.3) for revocation of the leave granted to Respondent no.1 (Plaintiff) under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent or in the alternative for deletion of Defendant no.3 from the array of the parties to the suit.
2. On 15 September 2006, the Respondent no.2 herein (Defendant no.1)-Zenith Infotech Limited offered US $ 33 million 3% convertible bonds due for repayment or redemption on expiry of five years. On 14 August 2007, the Defendant no.1 further offered US $ 50 million 3% convertible bonds for repayment or redemption on expiry of five years. The bonds were issued at 100% of the principal amount. The Plaintiff is the trustee holding the aforesaid bonds in trust for the bond holders, who responded to the above offer. The Defendant no.1 failed to pay the amounts due under 2011 and 2012 bonds on their legitimate dates. Since the Defendant no.1 did not make payment even after issuance of notice of default by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff demanded payments for bonds which were to be redeemed in the year 2011 and had also issued notice of acceleration for 2012 bonds. In view of non compliance with the said notice, the Plaintiff filed the suit in this Court claiming US $ 90 million (approximately) from Defendant no.1 with default interest.
3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that a certain business of Defendant no.1 (MSD business) was being spun off into Defendant no.4, an Indian company which was a 100% subsidiary of Defendant no.2, while Defendant no.2 was set up as a Special Purpose Vehicle (`SPV') ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 3 APP.207.2014 either by Defendant no.1 or by Defendant no.3 under the laws of State of Delaware, USA and that Defendant nos.5 and 6 are the promoters and directors of Defendant no.1 and also share holders and directors in Defendant no.4. The Plaintiff specifically alleged that the Defendants are acting in collusion to defeat the Plaintiff's rights and have structured the sale of MSD Business in a manner so as to frustrate the legitimate claims of the 2011 and 2012 bond holders, for whom the Plaintiff is the trustee. The Plaintiff has, therefore, prayed for a declaration that the transaction in relation to MSD Business is null and valid and in breach of fiduciary duty owned by Defendant no.2 to Plaintiff and its share holders.
4. The Plaintiff has claimed in the suit that the Defendant nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 have their offices in Mumbai, but Defendant no.3 was carrying on business outside the jurisdiction of this Court (In Delaware, USA) and, therefore, the Plaintiff applied for leave under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent before filing the suit. The leave was sought on the ground that material part of the cause of action in the present suit arose in Mumbai as the Defendant no.3 had issued a press release concerning transfer of MSD Business on its website which was accessible in Mumbai. This Court granted leave under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent by order dated 21 October 2011.
5. The Defendant no.3 took out the Chamber Summons seeking revocation of the aforesaid relief in November 2011, inter alia, on the ground that no part of cause of action as against Defendant no.3 had arisen in Mumbai. The Defendant no.3 contended that announcement ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 4 APP.207.2014 of sale of MSD Business on its website, which is accessible in Mumbai, by itself cannot be said to be a part of the cause of action accruing in Mumbai.
6. After filing his affidavit-in-reply on 1 October 2012, the constituted attorney of the Plaintiff filed additional affidavit dated 7 January 2013 stating, inter alia, as under :
"3. I submit that the Plaintiff has recently learned that in the month of February, 2012, Defendant no.3 has opened its office in Mumbai at Suite 25, 3 North Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051, India and is also carrying on its business operations from its Mumbai office. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-A are copies of snapshots of Defendant no.3's website pages reflecting its Mumbai office address which evidences that Defendant no.3 is carrying on its business operations from its Mumbai office.
4. I submit that by virtue of the occurrence of the above events, Defendant no.3 is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for the purposes of the present suit, even without grant of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. I further submit that, under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, this Hon'ble Court would have jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose off the suit qua Defendant no.3 even if no cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction, as the Defendant no.3 has an office at Mumbai.
5. I further submit that in view of the aforesaid, the leave granted by this Hon'ble Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent with respect to Defendant no.3 is now ipso facto redundant.
6. Further, as the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is now ipso facto redundant, the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 5 APP.207.2014 question of its revocation does not arise and as such the above chamber summons filed by the Defendant should be dismissed on this ground alone."
7. In Exhibit-A to the said affidavit, which is basically snapshots of Defendant No.3's website pages, there are statements to the effect that Defendant No.3, inter alia, based in Mumbai and has office in Mumbai.
8. In response to the aforesaid affidavit, Defendant no.3 filed its affidavit-in-reply dated 18 January 2013 denying that it has opened any office in Mumbai or is carrying on any operation from within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant no.3 also denied that the snapshots of the web pages submitted by the Plaintiff as attachments to the additional affidavit, in any manner establish that Defendant no.3 has its office in Mumbai or is otherwise carrying on any business operation from any place in Mumbai. Defendant no.3 also contended that the leave and licence agreement and the electricity bills which showed the address 'Suite 25, 3 North Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051, India', is in fact the office address of Summit India Advisory Pvt.Ltd., which is an entity, different and distinct from Defendant no.3. In any case, defendant No.3 contended, that in the absence of any appropriate application seeking amendment of the plaint, there was no question of taking cognizance of the statements in the plaintiff's additional affidavit dated 7 January 2013 and exhibits accompanying the same.
9. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 6 APP.207.2014 Trial Judge has, by the impugned order dated 16 April 2014, dismissed the Chamber Summons after considering the following questions :
"(i) Whether this Court can assume jurisdiction to entertain the suit against Defendant no.3 by reason of its having acquired an office within the jurisdiction of this court during the pendency of the suit; and
(ii) Whether the leave granted under Clause-XII needs to be revoked on the ground that no part of cause of action arose against Defendant no.3 within the jurisdiction of this Court."
10. As regards the first question, the learned Judge held as under :
(i) The issue of territorial jurisdiction of a Court needs to be decided in light of circumstances existing at the date when the issue of jurisdiction is tried by the Court. If on that date the Court has territorial jurisdiction by virtue of either residence of, or carrying on of business by, the Defendant, the Court can very well entertain and try the suit;
(ii) The residence or business of the Defendant at the place or jurisdiction is not part of the cause of action.
Hence, there is no question of amendment or alteration of the cause of action;
(iii) If territorial jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court by reason of change in residence or business of the ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 7 APP.207.2014 Defendant, the leave granted earlier may at best be said to have become redundant, but there is no question of any fresh leave being required; and
(iv) The Defendant no.3 having acquired a place of business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court after filing of the suit, the Court would, in any event, whether or not the leave granted earlier is revoked, have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
11. As regards the second question, the learned Single Judge held that the cause of action as pleaded against Defendant no.3 is that Defendant no.3 has colluded with Defendant no.1 and established Defendant no.2 company to take over the MSD business of Defendant no.1 though another new company, namely, Defendant no.4 and that the transaction was so structured, as to defeat the Plaintiff's rights under the trust deed in respect of MSD business which being the property of Defendant no.1, the Plaintiff must have recourse. The execution of the trust deed in Mumbai and incorporation of Defendant no.4 in Mumbai, would definitely form part of such cause of action and therefore, the leave granted under Clause-XII against Defendant no.3 cannot be said to have been wrongly granted.
12. After giving the aforesaid findings, the learned Trial Judge was of the view that it was not necessary to consider the contention raised by the Defendant no.3 that announcement on the web site of ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 8 APP.207.2014 Defendant no.3, which is accessible in Mumbai, cannot be considered as a part of the cause of action within Mumbai. It is the aforesaid order dated 16 April 2014 which is under challenge in this appeal.
13. Mr.Khambata, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant (Defendant no.3) submitted that :
(i) For deciding the question whether leave was rightly granted under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent, we are only required to look at the cause title and averments in the plaint. The Chamber Summons moved by the Plaintiff for amendment of the plaint is still pending for hearing before the learned Trial Judge. Therefore, looking at the original plaint, the Defendant no.3 is shown to have an office and place of business in USA and not in India. The plaint also specifically states that the Defendant no.3 carries on business outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge ought to have revoked the leave under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent;
(ii) The learned Trial Judge erred in holding that the Defendant no.3 has acquired a place of business in Mumbai after filing of the suit. The Plaintiff's case to that effect in the additional affidavit was already controverted by the Defendant no.3 in its affidavit ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 9 APP.207.2014 dated 18 January 2013 and the Advocate for Defendant no.3 had also orally prayed for permission to lead evidence in support of the above. But the learned Trial Judge gave the finding that Defendant no.3 had opened its office in Mumbai without giving an opportunity to Defendant no.3 to lead evidence;
(iii) The website in question pertains to Defendant no.3 as a group and the office in question in Mumbai belongs to one of the group companies but various entities under the group are distinct legal entities and, therefore, it cannot be said that Defendant no.3 has opened an office in Mumbai;
(iv) The learned counsel for Appellant has also challenged the finding that irrespective of the question about accessibility of the website in Mumbai, the plaint discloses such cause of action against Defendant no.3 which could justify granting leave under Clause-XII against Defendant no.3;
(v) There is no allegation against Defendant no.3 that it is a party related to Defendant no.1. It is the case of Defendant no.3 that it is an independent entity and is a creditor of Defendant no.1.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 :::10 APP.207.2014
14. On the other hand, Mr.Dwarkadas, learned Senior Advocate for the Plaintiff has supported the order of learned Trial Judge. Mr. Dwarkadas submitted that upon reading of the plaint in its entirety, it is clear that at least part of the cause of action as against Defendant no.3 has arisen in Mumbai. Further, Mr. Dwarkadas made reference to the order dated 9 July 2012 made by this Court in Appeal (L) No.295 of 2012 and the judgment dated 23 April 2014 passed by another Division Bench of this Court in Appeal (L) No.14 of 2014, which dismissed the appeal filed by Defendant no.1 against an order of winding-up passed by the learned Company Judge. Mr. Dwarkdas submitted that the learned Company Judge, in its order of winding-up, has recorded the findings that Defendant no.1 and its promoters and directors had siphoned off the funds received from sale of MSD Business.
15. By way of rejoinder, Mr. Khambatta the learned senior advocate for Defendant No.3 submitted that the findings and observations made by the learned Company Judge in the order of winding-up and the judgment of the Division Bench dated 23 April 2014 dismissing the appeal of Defendant no.1 against the said order, cannot, in any manner, bind Defendant no.3 which was not party to the said proceedings.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we see no reason to interfere with the order made by the learned trial Court.
17. In terms of Clause-XII of the Letters Patent, this Court in exercise of its ordinary original jurisdiction will have the power to ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 11 APP.207.2014 receive, try and determine suits where the cause of action has arisen wholly within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction or if prior leave of the Court has been obtained and the cause of action has arisen in part within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court or if the defendant dwells or carries on business or personally works for gain within such limits. The question whether the cause of action has arisen in part within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court has to be determined on the averments in the plaint with regard to the reliefs claimed therein.
18. In the plaint, the Plaintiff has alleged collusion between all the Defendants, inter se, particularly in the matter of sale of MSD Business, including by way of placing the amounts received from out of such sale, beyond the reach and jurisdiction of this Court. In this regard, the averments in para 33 of the plaint need to be noted "33. As is evident from all of the facts set out above, Defendant Nos.1,2,3,4,5 and 6 are all acting together to the detriment of Plaintiff and Defendant No.5 and Defendant No.6 are in fact both (a) promoters of Defendant No.1 and
(b) shareholders in Defendant No.4. They are also directors on both Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.4. The manner in which the transactions have been structured and correspondences between all of the entities involved clearly sets out what the Plaintiff believes to be the malafides of Defendant No.1 acting in collusion with Defendant Nos.2,3,4,5 and 6."
(emphasis supplied)
19. In Jindal Vijaynagar Steel (JSW Steel Ltd.) vs. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Co.Ltd. - (2006) 11 SCC 521, it has been held that the issue of ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 12 APP.207.2014 territorial jurisdiction of a Court needs to be decided in light of circumstances existing at the date when the issue of jurisdiction is being decided by the Court. On the date of hearing the arguments in this appeal, we had before us not only the averments in the plaint containing allegation of collusion, but also the benefit of judgment and order dated 23 April 2014 passed by another Division Bench of this Court dismissing the appeal filed by Defendant No.1 against the order to wind up Defendant No.1. No doubt, as contended by Mr. Khambata, Defendant no.3 was not a party to the winding-up proceedings. But it must be noted that the findings in the said judgment and order dated 23 April 2014 squarely concern the transactions involving the sale of MSD Business by Defendant No.1 and surely Defendant No.3 is no stranger to such a transaction. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that the said transaction was a structured deal, inter alia for the placement of sale proceeds beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the issue is no longer in the mere realm of allegation against the Defendants, but there are strong findings recorded by this Court in the context of Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) by which the MSD Business was ultimately acquired by Defendant No.3. Accordingly, it is necessary to make reference to such strong findings/observations in the judgment and order dated 23 April 2014*.
"The admitted facts are:-
"21. The consideration of the rival contentions is prefaced with the following admitted facts :
* In the quotation/extract, the description of the parties in the bracket indicates their description in the suit giving rise to the appeal ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 :::
13 APP.207.2014
(i) An amount of over US $101 is due and payable by the appellant (defendant No.1) to the respondents (plaintiffs).
(ii) The appellant (defendant No.1) expressly represented to its shareholders, the bondholders / respondents, the Bombay Stock Exchange, the National Stock Exchange and to the Bombay City ig Civil Court that it proposed selling the MSD division to raise funds to repay / redeem the 2011 and 2012 bonds.
(iii) The MSD business was sold purportedly on the terms and conditions contained in the Asset Purchase Agreement.
(iv) An amount of about US $ 55 million was received under the APA (According to the appellant (defendant No.1) it received only 50% of this amount and its wholly owned subsidiary Zenith Dubai received the balance 50%. This is seriously disputed by the respondents (plaintiffs). It, however, makes no ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 14 APP.207.2014 difference. Although it was not admitted before us, we will demonstrate that the appellant's (defendant No.1's) case is that it had represented that the entire sale proceeds from the sale of the MSD business was to be paid to the respondents (plaintiffs).)
(v) Not a rupee from the proceeds of the ig sale of the MSD business was paid to the respondent / bondholders."
"62. It is no mere accident that the appellant (defendant No.1) did not keep its word. There were no circumstances that prevented the appellant from keeping its word. There were no supervening commercial circumstances that disabled the appellant from keeping its word. The appellant's (defendant No.1's) intention right from the beginning was to mislead all the relevant parties, especially the bondholders and to divert the moneys, including by putting the same out of the reach of this Court.
(emphasis supplied)
63. The manner in and the haste with which Zenith Dubai disbursed the amount of US$ 27 million received under the APA also indicates an attempt to ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 15 APP.207.2014 divert the monies, putting it beyond the control of the Court and making the recovery thereof even more difficult. The appellant (defendant No.1), on being compelled to by this Court, disclosed the facts in this regard. One of the promoters filed an affidavit dated 23rd January, 2012, in Notice of Motion No.3527 of 2011 in Suit No.2865 of 2011 filed in this Court pursuant to the directions contained in an order dated 23rd December, 2011. The affidavit discloses that the Asset Purchase Agreement was entered into on 23 rd September, 2011, and the payment there under was made to the appellant (defendant No.1) and to Zenith Dubai on 23rd September, 2011. On 11th October, 2011, Zenith Dubai paid an amount of US$ 0.73 million to its subsidiaries viz. Cloud Dubai and Vu Dubai. The notice of acceleration was issued by the appellant [sic - respondents (plaintiffs)] on 12th October, 2011. On the same day Zenith Dubai diverted an amount of US$ 20.2 million to or for the benefit of its group companies.
64. The respondent (plaintiffs herein), therefore, has made out more than just a strong prima facie case that the APA was a structured deal - structured with an intention to divert an amount of US$ 27.8 million from the appellant to its wholly owned subsidiary Zenith Dubai. Assuming that the amount was legitimately due to Zenith Dubai it would still make ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 16 APP.207.2014 no difference. The suppression of that fact was with the intention to lead the respondent into a state of inaction with a view to ensuring that the respondent did not take any action to prevent the appellant from diverting the amounts and putting them out of the reach of the respondent and the Court. It was not merely a coincidence that this diversion took place on the same day".
(emphasis supplied)
20. For the purposes of the present appeal, we are not really concerned as to whether the allegations of collusion between the Defendants, inter se, are correct or not. Ultimately, these are matters which will be evaluated upon at the trial of the suit. At this stage, however, in the wake of the averments in the plaint coupled with the observations/findings as recorded in the judgment and order dated 23 April 2014, it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. True, Defendant No.3 was not a party to the winding up proceedings, from out of which the judgment and order dated 23 April 2014 arises. However, as noted earlier, the findings and observations relate to the sale of MSD Business by Defendant No.1, to which transaction Defendant No.3 is by no means a stranger. This very transaction has been held to be a structured deal, inter alia, for the purposes of placing the proceeds thereof out of the reach of this Court.
21. The averments in paragraph 59 of the plaint, which concern the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, have to be ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 17 APP.207.2014 considered in light of such other averments in the plaint, which concern the involvement of Defendant No.3 in sale of MSD Business, the proceeds of which were represented to be utilized for redemption of 2011 and 2012 bonds. In this paragraph 59, the Plaintiff has averred that a material part of cause of action as against Defendant no.3 has arisen in Mumbai and that this is evident from the press release on its website accessible in Mumbai. The website relates to the MSD Business, which is the subject matter of the suit. There is also an averment in this paragraph that Defendant no.3 effectively conducts the business within the jurisdiction of this Court.
22. In light of the averments in the plaint, it cannot be said that no part of cause of action as against Defendant No.3 has arisen in Mumbai. Further, the material produced on record by the Plaintiff alongwith its affidavit dated 7 January 2013, in the form of snapshots of Defendant No.3's website pages, also indicates that it is based in Boston, Menlo Park, London and Mumbai and that it employs more than 70 investment professionals at the said four offices. The relevant extracts from the snapshots read thus:
"In 1984, we started Summit Partners (Defendant No.3- Purchaser of MSD Business) with a vision of helping companies realize their full growth potential. As a fast-growing company, we learned firsthand about the value of hard work and innovation, striving against odds and following a dream. Today, we are a leader in growth equity and credit investing for rapidly growing companies. Our investment team is one of the largest and most experienced in the business. We employ more than 70 investment professional across our four offices in Boston, Menlo Park, London and Mumbai. In total, we employ more than 140 people."::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 :::
18 APP.207.2014 "Based in Boston, Menlo Park, London and Mumbai, our investment professionals travel the globe in search of rapidly growing companies across many industries."
(emphasis supplied)
23. Mr. Khambatta is, therefore, not right in his submission that because there are no allegations in the plaint that Defendant no.3 is a party related to Defendant no.1 or that there was any under valuation by Defendant No.1, in so far as the sale of MSD Business is concerned, that by itself would amount to absence of any cause of action against Defendant No.3. As noted earlier, if the averments in the plaint are considered in their entirety, then it is clear that there are allegations of collusion between the Defendants, inter se in the matter of sale of MSD Business and placement of sale proceeds out of the reach of this Court. Such allegations, have been substantially endorsed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment and order dated 23 April 2014. In any case, at the stage of grant or revocation of leave, there is no question of adjudicating upon the veracity or otherwise of such allegations.
24. Further, it is the categorical case of Defendant No.3 that office address in Mumbai is that of its group concern. All that Defendant No.3 contends is that the office in Mumbai is not taken on licence in the name of Defendant No.3, but it is taken under leave and licence agreement entered into by one of the group companies. That does not necessarily detract from Defendant No.3 carrying on its business from the said office in Mumbai. Hence assuming that the concerned office ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 ::: 19 APP.207.2014 premises in Mumbai are taken on leave and licence basis by Summit India Advsiory Pvt. Ltd. (admittedly one of the group companies) and not by Defendant No.3- Summit Partners L.P., in the face of undisputed representation held out by Defendant No.3 in its website to the world at large that one of its offices is in Mumbai, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Trial Judge.
25. In any case, irrespective of the question whether Defendant No.3 has its office in Mumbai or not, no case has been made out Defendant No.3 to seek revocation of leave on the ground that the plaint did not disclose that even a part of cause of action has accrued against Defendant No.3 in Mumbai.
26. In light of the above discussion, it is not necessary to decide whether Defendant no.3 was deprived of opportunity to lead evidence to establish in whose name the office in Mumbai is taken on leave and licence basis, at the stage of deciding the motion for revocation of leave. The Plaintiff has already taken out a chamber summons seeking amendment of the plaint. In the event, leave to amend is granted by the Trial Court, then the issue of leave under Clause-XII of Letters Patent, may become redundant. That however, is no reason to fault the Trial Court for declining revocation of leave by the order impugned in this appeal.
27. Therefore, upon consideration of totality of the circumstances, we see no cause to interfere with the impugned order. This appeal is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed and is so dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 :::20 APP.207.2014
28. We, however, clarify that the observations made by us in this order, are only in the context of deciding the issue whether Defendant no.3 has made out a case for revocation of leave under Clause-XII of Letters Patent. We may not be taken to have expressed any opinion on merits and de-merits of the case as set out by the respective parties.
29. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(CHIEF JUSTICE) (M.S.SONAK, J.) Dss/Mst ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:03 :::