TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osal of all the applications is as follows:- The plaintiff filed the suit to declare the resolution dated 27.6.2000 passed at the Board Meeting of D1 Bank as null and void and plaintiff claimed damages of Rs. 10 lakhs. The suit is not maintainable before this court as D1 and other defendants except D2 are not residents within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff already filed OS. No. 224/2000 on the file of the DMC Tuticorin involving the same issues and D1 withdrew the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit for impleading the Company Secretary of the D1-Bank on the same cause of action. However, contrary to the conditional liberty granted by the Court, the plaintiff has filed the present suit by making M/s. King Partridge, Advocates, Chennai as a party to the proceedings allegedly on the ground that D1 acted on their opinion. The entire cause of action alleged in the plaint is against the Bank. Only with a view to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court, M/s. King Partridge has been impleaded as D2 alleging that the opinion rendered by them would constitute 'cause of action'. An opinion held either by the counsel or by a party could in no eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e expunged and the name of D2 should be struck out from the plaint. Hence, these petitions. 5. The plaintiff filed separate counter contending that though the defendants 1, 3 and 4 are not the residents of Madras, still the 2nd defendant is having their office at Madras, and they are practising only at Madras, as Solicitors and Attorneys. The impugned legal opinion was given at Madras, and as such the plaintiff is entitled to file the suit also at Madras. No specific reason given by the learned Dt. Munsif in OS.224/2000 by the order dated 11.8.2000. The law is very much settled for the purpose of jurisdiction, the allegations in the plaint atone have to be looked into. The question of hardship is a relevant factor while deciding such kind of allegations. The D1-Bank is one of the leading Banks in India, and the Chairman often himself coming over to Madras. They can effectively defend the case. If the leave is revoked, the plaintiff will be greatly prejudiced. D2 has to establish that the allegations made by the plaintiff are unnecessary and scandalous. It is always open to them to challenge and they cannot be expunged. The question whether D2 is a necessary party can be decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, as such, the plaintiff has filed the present suit and other applications. Now, the first defendant filed Application No. 4631 of 2000 to revoke the leave granted by an order dated 7.9.2000 on the ground that already the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 224 of 2000 before the District Munsif Court, Tuticorin for a similar relief, wherein the present second defendant was not a party. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed an application to withdraw the plaint on the ground that the Company Secretary has to be made a party and for which the plaintiff was given liberty to withdraw that suit to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. However, the plaintiff without filing any subsequent suit before Tuticorin Courts has filed the present suit before this Court alleging that the Firm of Solicitors namely, the second defendant gave the opinion at Madras and their Office is also at Madras and, as such, part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Similarly, the second defendant also filed Application Nos. 4371 to 4373 of 2000 to strike out the name of the second defendant from the plaint, to reject the plaint as there is no cause of action at Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the second defendant has been deliberately added only to give a cause of action to file a suit before this Court and to harass. 12. It is also clear from the records that in respect of the disputes, several cases have been filed before the different courts and in C.R.P. No. 30 of 1998, this Court gave a clear direction that institution of the suit against the Bank pertaining to the AGM / Board/ Committee Meeting of the Bank could be only before the Court in whose jurisdiction, the registered office of the Bank is situated. In spite of this, the plaintiff has come forward with a suit before this Court alleging as if the opinion of the Second defendant is responsible for removing him from the Directorship. The opinion given by the Solicitors Firm cannot constitute a cause of action to enable a third party to proceed against the said firm. Admittedly, the opinion given by the second defendant firm was only to the bank and not the plaintiff. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the Solicitors Firm and this being the position, there is absolutely no cause of action for the plaintiff to proceed against the second defendant. Further more, Section 126 of the Evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Silicate Glass Industries, that in considering the balance of convenience, the court is required to see the plaint and the facts stated therein. There is no dispute about the principles. 16. Reliance is also placed upon the decision in N. Dhanalakshmi and Ors. v. S. Ekanathan, that the Court has to look into averments of plaint for determining jurisdiction. Possibility of plaintiff claiming further reliefs on future date is irrelevant for determining jurisdiction of Court for entertaining suit. There is also no dispute about this principle. 17. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff also relied on State of Orissa v. Klockner Co., wherein the applicant specifically not pleading that plaint does not disclose any cause of action, Court not maintaining distinction between plea that there was no cause of action for suit and plea that plaint does not disclose cause of action and rejecting plaint and it was held that the rejection is not proper. There is no dispute about this proposition and the application of the same depends upon the facts and circumstances in each case. Viewed in any way, it is manifestly clear that the opinion given by the second defendant cannot be a cause of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaintiff is highly condemnable and, as such, he should be dealt with severely for his conduct. 20. The second defendant also filed separate applications to strike out the pleadings, which are unnecessary scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and pointed out the averments in paras 72, 77, 78, 88 to 90, 93, 94, 100 and 101. The plaintiff is not the client of the Solicitors Firm. The opinion given by the second defendant firm was only to the first defendant bank and no doubt, the opinion was also considered in the Board Meeting to take a decision. It cannot be stated that because of the opinion only, the plaintiff was removed from the post of Director. There is an accusation against the plaintiff relating to his association with defendant's firms 3 and 4 as they have taken loan from the first defendant bank and in view of these transactions only, the plaintiff was removed from the post of Director. The question whether the removal is proper or not can be considered only in a suit properly constituted in an appropriate forum. As such, it is not necessary that this Court has to go into the question whether his removal is justified or not. The opinion given by a counsel is mainly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obligated upon the second defendant is to forward the reports and his provision conclusions to the plaintiff and offer him an opportunity to explain his stand, so that, the plaintiff would have gladly furnished all the informations. This is absolutely unnecessary. In para 100, it is stated that the alleged opinion dated 24.6.2000 and 27.6.2000 are all perverse, arbitrary, mala fide, beyond the scope of this function as Legal Advisor, the said opinion are also bad in law . The aforesaid averments would clearly indicate the mind of the plaintiff and to what extent he had been affected by the removal. The plaintiff has no business whatsoever to use such words against the Solicitors Firm and the plaintiff is not the pay master to the Solicitors Firm. These remarks are absolutely unwarranted and made with a view to spoil the reputation of the second defendant firm. Under the circumstances, the averments mentioned in the aforesaid paras are likely to be struck out from the pleadings and if it is to remain, it would amount to an abuse of process and the plaintiff cannot be given such an opportunity to exceed his limits. 24. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the decision re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects ii would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. The analogy in this decision also can be made applicable to the case on hand. 27. It is, therefore, evidently clear that the various averments made in the paras referred to above are unnecessary, scandalous frivolous and vexatious and, as such, they are liable to be deleted from the pleadings. There is no cause of action against the second defendant and, as such, the plaint has to be rejected in respect of the second defendant and under the circumstance, the name of the second defendant also has to be struck out from the plaint. The leave granted to the plaintiff also is liable to be revoked. Hence, these points are answered accordingly. 28. For the foregoing reasons, Application Nos. 4371 and 4373 and 4631 of 2000 are allowed. So far as Application No. 4372 of 2000 is concerned, the plaint is rejected so far as the second defendant is concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
