( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of Khanwilkar, J. dismissing a Chamber Summons for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5 crores which has been paid by the plaintiff on demand of the Income Tax Authorities on account of the tax liability of the defendant as also for recovery of Rs. 96,16,74,416/- and Rs. 132,6521,397/- being the balance amount which has been demanded from the plaintiff by the income Tax Authorities as the plaintiff is required to pay this amount on account of the tax liability of the defendant.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff presented the suit before the authorised officer of this Court on 20th July, 2001 and formal application for leave under Clause 12 was moved which was granted on 8th September, 2001. Thereafter the suit came to be numbered on 13th September, 2001 and plaint was served on the defendant on 1st October, 2001. Upon service, the defendant entered appearance and filed chamber Summons No. 390 of 2003 for revocation of the leave under Clause 12 which came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge by order under appeal.

( 3 ) MR. Tulzapurkar appearing in support of the appeal raised two submissions before us. First, it is argued, that no part of cause of action has arisen in Mumbai and, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction and leave under Clause 12 could not have been granted. Secondly, it is contended that the plaintiff has first lodged the suit on 24th July, 2001 without obtaining prior leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent; whereas leave has been granted subsequently on 8th september, 2001 which was impermissible and consequently the order is void and without jurisdiction.

( 4 ) FIRST we proceed to answer the issue as to whether no part of cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. It is well settled that expression "cause of action" means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In Chand Kour vs. Partab Singh, 1lr (1889) 16 Cal. 98. Lord Watson said :". . . . The cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. "

( 5 ) IN Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra and others; (2000) 7 SCC 640, the Supreme Court has observed thus : "18. In legal parlance the expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in. Court from another person. 19. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every facts, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. 20. In "words and Phrases" (4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase "cause of action" in common legal parlance is existence of those facts which give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf. "

( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of A. B. C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. A. P. Agencies, Salem; (1989) 2 SCC 163 explained the term "cause of action" as follows :"12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document