Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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;

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 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*.