Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: tortious interference in Sarine Technologies Ltd Through ... vs Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation ... on 31 January, 2020Matching Fragments
1. Present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 29.2.2019 passed by learned trial Court on Application Exhibit 7 under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Special Civil Suit No.191 of 2018 whereby the application was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Petitioner is the original defendant in the suit preferred by the Respondent (original Plaintiff) bearing Special Civil Suit No. 191 of 2018 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") seeking damages for tortious act of unlawful interference with contracts and business relations worth Rs. 5,00,00,000/- and grant of permanent injunction against the petitioner herein restraining the petitioner from sending interfering letters/notices to the clients and potential clients of the Respondent herein. For the sake of brevity and convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per their original status before the trial Court as "plaintiff" and "defendant".
d. The question of whether the Respondent has even been able to make out a prima facie case of "tortious interference" against the petitioner cannot be examined at the present stage.
3. It is submitted that the impugned order is non-reasoned and discloses non-application of mind by the trial Court. In fact, the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law and in utter disregard to the established principles of Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. Further, the trial Court has acted in the teeth of settled law that furnishing of reasons is the heartbeat of every conclusion as it introduces clarity in an order and that without the same the order becomes lifeless. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to prefer the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff alleging that the defendant has caused tortious interference in the business of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that the said tortious interference has been caused by the Petitioner on account of press releases made by the Petitioner in Singapore and the United States of America. Admittedly, the said press releases have not been issued in India and the same solely contain the factum of the various litigations pending between the parties in India. The plaintiff has further alleged that the petitioner issued a letter to an entity, 'Rogers & Hollands Jewelers' in the United States of America, after which 'Rogers & Hollands Jewelers' issued letters to alleged customers/clients of the plaintiff in India. According to the plaintiff, as a result of the said press releases made outside India and the letter issued by 'Rogers & Hollands Jewelers', the defendant has caused tortious interference with the business of the plaintiff in Surat, India.
6. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Niraj Malhotra with Mr.Jandeep Grover with Ms.Vara Gaur with Pankhuri Bhardwaj with Mr.Dilip Rana for the petitioner-defendant and learned counsel, Mr.Vinod Khurana with Mr.Rushabh Nigam, Hemang S. Shah for plaintiff no.1. Perused the material placed on record and the decisions cited at bar.
7. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Niraj Malhotra for the defendant, while referring to the copy of the plaint has submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit for damages for tortious act of unlawful interference of contract and business relations worth Rs.5 Crore and for grant of permanent injunction against the defendant, wherein the address of the defendant is shown to be in Israel. Learned counsel also referred to paragraph 10 of the plaint, wherein it is averred that the defendant is a company incorporated under the laws of Israel, having its registered office at 4, Haharash St., HodHasharon 4524075, Israel. According to him, these facts itself show that the defendant is carrying on the business in Israel and, therefore, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.