Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

http://www.judis.nic.in  d. Costs of the suit.

3. The entire allegation is with regard to the sale of the shares of the first defendant's company. It is stated in the plaint that out of the sale of the shares by the second and third defendants, the plaintiff nor its shareholders have secured any profit or earn out from the said transaction. Despite the above fact, the second defendant is making misrepresentation to the public. It is also stated in the plaint that the cause of action arose in the present suit arose where the situs and transfer of shares took place and the second defendant executed the share purchase agreement and subsequently when the defendants gave the press statements regarding the acquisition of Hermes and thereafter, on the dates when the emails were exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5. Thereafter, the plaintiff bank also wrote an email on 12.09.2018. It is stated that a part of cause of action has arose for maintaining the present suit before this Court.

11. Mr.Sankara Narayanan, Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant in A.No.3847 of 2019 submitted that there is no cause of action in the entire plaint. Para 11.1 to 11.37 relate to the earlier litigation. Page 1 of the plaint itself indicate that the first defendant is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. The alleged share purchase is already pleaded in the earlier suit. The entire pleading in the plaint do not show which defendant gave the statement. The email relied upon by the plaintiff between the plaintiff and the third defendant is only in the nature of seeking information. The above email will not give a cause of action in apprehensive relief as well as damages. This suit is one for seeking information by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is his contention that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. This suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law and it has been filed only to non suit the earlier Orders passed by http://www.judis.nic.in  this Court in an anti suit injunction. The relief sought in the suit is in the nature of gag Order as against the minority share holders or a witness not to give correct particulars before the English Court. Hence, it is his contention that the prayer in the suit has been couched in such a manner by clever drafting to show as if the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, submitted that the leave granted by this Court has to be revoked.

14. The earlier litigation has not been pleaded in the petition and affidavit. The prayer sought in the suit is not to publish against the plaintiff. The third defendant has not even entered appearance in the suit. In paragraphs 11.38 and 11.39 in the plaint, the facts have been clearly pleaded and the facts pleaded in paragraph 11.40 has not been specifically denied by the defendants. The emails were exchanged within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff is http://www.judis.nic.in  having its registered office within the jurisdiction of this Court. The loss suffered by the plaintiff is at Chennai. The Defendants made a statement in the website with an intent to market in India. Misrepresentation is based on the transaction took place in Chennai. This suit is based on the action of the defendants projecting false pictures at world at large. In fact, there is no dispute as to the press release issued by the defendants. Though it is the contention of the second defendant in the present suit that the second defendant had acquired share from the third defendant, the press release communicated otherwise. Besides, the second defendant is also running business at Chennai. Now they cannot plead forum inconveniens. Emails also exchanged in Chennai and the press release also in Chennai. These are all matters for trial. The press release in January, 2018 issued by one Alpahaville, which is an unit of part of financial times. It is internationally recognized platform for industry. Hence, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the plaintiff has also filed an application for amendment to amend the plaint after getting necessary particulars. These applications have been filed much after the amendment application filed by the plaintiff. Territorial jurisdiction has to be raised at the earlier stage. Though publication published in website, the effects doctrine apply.

33. The email correspondences sought to be relied on by the plaintiff as plaint documents clearly indicate that the plaint sought certain particulars, particularly subsequent to the sale of the shares by the third defendant to the second defendant. The email correspondences sought by the plaintiff seeking http://www.judis.nic.in  those particulars on the ground that there was no profit. Such information is sought only to defend the action brought out by the minority share holders against the promoter and the Managing Director of the Plaintiff company. However, the information sought by the plaintiff was not furnished on the ground of confidentiality. The email correspondences though emanated from Chennai, it was primarily for the plaintiff's Promoter and the Managing Director to seek certain particulars from the first defendant in respect of the sale of shares in favour of the second defendant to defend their action. The correspondences also indicate that they have in fact gone to the extent of saying that the second and the third defendants would be impleaded in the proceedings before the High Court, i.e., in O.S.A.275 5o 277 of 2018.