JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant, who is the original plaintiff in the Commercial Summary Suit, and who challenges an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 27.01.2021, rejecting leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff in its Leave Petition contends that a part of the cause of action in the present case has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court; under a particular clause of the contract, namely, Clause-H of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.02.2017, the parties have contracted for exclusive jurisdiction of Courts in Mumbai for any action arising out of the subject Memorandum of Understanding.

3. It is the plaintiff's case, and for the purpose of Clause XII of the Letters of Patent we have to accept that case, that the plaintiff' has its corporate office in Mumbai and it was this office, through which the plaintiff entered into the suit Memorandum of Understanding and issued the suit debit notes. It is the plaintiff's case that the debit notes were not paid fully in accordance with the Memorandum of understanding. The plaintiff received a part payment in Mumbai, towards part satisfac