TMI Blog1980 (9) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atory injunction directing the defendants for disposal of the said investments in accordance with the orders to be passed by this court and for other consequential reliefs. Before filing this suit, the plaintiff obtained leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. . From the perusal of the plaint and the prayers framed there under it would appear that no relief has been claimed against defendant No. 12, the chartered accountant, and the plaint also does not disclose any cause of action against defendants Nos. 2 to 11. The plaintiff has obtained leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, on the basis of the averments made in paras. 15 and 19 of the plaint which read as follows : "15. The aforesaid representation of the company and its auditors that the accounts (together with notes thereon and documents annexed hereto) give the information required by the Companies Act, 1956, is wrongful, incorrect, mala fide and the same does not disclose the correct state of affairs in connection with the investments made by the defendant company and the company and/or its auditors deliberately made the aforesaid misrepresentation and/or misleading comments to the shareholders and also to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance-sheet within the jurisdiction of this court. It would appear from the pleadings as also from the prayers that Jyoti Bhushan Mukherjee has not challenged the balance-sheet nor has he claimed any relief in the nature of cancellation, setting aside or in any other way making the said balance-sheet ineffective. Although there are averments that the auditors have deliberately made misrepresentations and misleading statements to the shareholders and also to the plaintiff which tantamounts to fraud on the shareholders, no relief has been claimed against the auditors. In none of the prayers starting from ( a ) to ( i ) the said balance-sheet has not been challenged, nor any relief has been claimed in respect of the said balance-sheet. It is the positive case of the petitioner that the receipt of the balance-sheet is no part of the plaintiff's cause of action, nor the letter received by Mr. L. K. Khettry on behalf of Mr. Sukumar Bose. Secondly, it is the petitioner's case that considering the balance of convenience this court should revoke the leave granted in favour of the plaintiff inasmuch as the defendant company is situated outside the jurisdiction of this court and all the office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intex, Industries, AIR 1980 Cal. 159, and submitted that a mere statement of fact in a plaint does not amount to a cause of action but the said fact must have a distinct connotation to the expression "cause of action". In the case reported in Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal, AIR 1949 Cal. 495, certain tests have been laid down to be applied in an application for the revocation of leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent and one of the tests is that where only a part of a cause of action arises then it is a question of discretion with the court to grant or refuse leave or to revoke or maintain leave which has already, been granted taking into consideration the balance of convenience and if the balance is definitely in favour of the defendant the court should apply the doctrine of forum "convenience". The same view was affirmed by a Division Bench of this court presided over by Chief Justice Sankar Prosad Mitra in the case reported in Union of India v. Kuppuswamy Naicker, AIR 1978 Cal. 211. It would appear from section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code that although suits can be instituted against a defendant where a corporation carries on business at its sole office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not turn round and ask this court to revoke the leave. It would appear that this suit has been filed under O. 1, r. 8, hence 41 shareholders have come and been added as parties. It is true that the point of jurisdiction should be taken at the earliest opportunity and parties who have acquiesced or submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and have obtained orders in favour of them should not be allowed at a subsequent stage to challenge the jurisdiction of this court. In this case an application was taken out by the plaintiff under section 155 of the Companies Act: The said application was adjourned sine die on the ground of pendency of this suit. Considering these facts Mr. Nag also urged that the court should not revoke the leave on this ground also. But, it would appear that this suit was filed on 28th April, 1979, and an interlocutory application was taken out on 7th of May, and in the affidavit-in-opposition, at the earliest opportunity the petitioners have challenged the point of jurisdiction in the said application and in June, 1979, this application itself has been taken out for revocation of the leave. While this application for revocation of leave was pending an applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
