Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have taken out this chamber summons for revoking the leave granted under clause XII of the Letters Patent.

2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit to recover a sum of Rs. 11 crores odd from defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are the other financial institutions with whom the plaintiffs have a pari passu agreement, whereby they have agreed inter se that their respective rights with regard to their claim of each of them as against defendants Nos. 1 to 4 shall rank pari passu without any preference or priority of one over the other or others for all purposes and to all intents.

3. It is an admitted position that all the facilities to defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were granted at Quilon and Punalur, Kerala. The amounts were disbursed at Quilon. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 carry on business and reside out of Bombay. The immovable properties which are given as security are also situated out of Bombay. However, the plaintiffs have sought to file the suit in this court on the basis that the pari passu agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 was entered into in Bombay and that the mortgage deed was executed at Bombay. That in how the plaintiffs applied for leave under clause XII of the Letters Patent which was granted on April 19, 1987.

6. Mr. Rohit Kapadia submitted that the plaintiffs have also relied on the pari passu agreement entered into by and between the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 5 to 7, which covers all the securities given by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 to each of these financial institutions. His submission is that since that agreement was entered into in Bombay and since ultimately the distribution of the amount has to be ranked in accordance with the same, it can be said that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the limits of this court. I am not inclined to accept this submission of Mr. Kapadia. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are not parties to the said pari passu agreement. It is an arrangement inter se amongst the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 5 to 7. It will come into operation only when a decree is passed and the amounts are realised by enforcement of the securities. As far as defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are concerned, the said pari passu agreement can never be a cause of action.