Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 1892
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S. M. Modak, J.
Snv Aviation Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Capt. Gareema Kumar & Ors. - Respondents
Leave Petition (L) No. 24935 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 24922 of 2023 with Interim Application (L) No. 24933 of 2023 with Interim Application (L) No. 24969 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 24961 of 2023 with Leave Petition (L) No. 24973 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 24961 of 2023 with Interim Application (L) No. 25049 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 25045 of 2023 with Leave Petition (L) No. 25052 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 25045 of 2023 with Interim Application (L) No. 25231 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 25219 of 2023 with Leave Petition (L) No. 25234 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 25219 of 2023 with Leave Petition (L) No. 25298 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 25293 of 2023 with Interim Application (L) No. 25300 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 25293 of 2023 with Leave Petition (L) No. 25427 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 25426 of 2023 with Interim Application (L) No. 25428 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 25426 of 2023
Decided On : 27-09-2023
Mr. Janak Dwarkadas - Senior Advocate a/w Ms.Rishika Harish a/w Mr. Ashish Bhan, Mr. Aayush Mitruka, Ms.Lisa Mishra, Ms.Sonal Singh and Ms.Preksha Gupta i/b. Trilegal - Advocate for Applicant - Plaintiff in LPETN(L) No.24935 of 2023 and IA(L) No.24933 of 2023 in S(L) No. 24922 of 2023.; Mr. Ashish Bhan, Mr. Aayush Mitruka, Ms.Lisa Mishra, Ms.Sonal Singh and Ms.Preksha Gupta i/b. Trilegal - Advocate for Applicant - Plaintiff in LPETN(L) No.24973 of 2023 and IA(L) No.24969 of 2023 in S(L) No.24961 of 2023, LPETN(L) No.25052 of 2023 and IA(L) No.25049 of 2023 in S(L) No.25219 of 2023, LPETN(L) No.25298 of 2023 and IA(L) No.25300 of 2023 in S(L) No.25293 of 2023 and LPETN(L) No.25427 of 2023 and IA(L) No.25428 of 2023 in S(L) No.25426 of 2023.; Mr. Darius Khambata - Senior Advocate with Mr. Srinivas Bobde, Ms.Shreenandini Mukhopadhyaya w/ Mr. Rohan Dakshini, Ms.Shweta Jaydev, Ms.Janaki Garde, Mr. Chandrajit Das, Ms.Feroza Bharucha, Mr. Shamant Satiya and Ms.Arya Gadagkar i/b. M/s.Rashmikant and Partners - Advocates for Defendant in LPETN(L) No.24935 of 2023 and IA(L) No.24933 of 2023 in S(L) No.24922 of 2023; Mr. Srinivas Bobde with Mr. Rohan Dakshini with Ms.Shweta Jaydev, Ms.Janaki Garde, Mr. Chandrajit Das, Ms.Feroza Bharucha, Mr. Shamant Satiya and Ms.Arya Gadagkar i/b. M/ s.Rashmikant and Partners - Advocates for Defendant in LPETN(L) No.24973 of 2023 and IA(L) No.24969 of 2023 in S(L) No.24961 of 2023.; Mr. Zal Andhyarujina - Senior Advocate with Mr. Azeem Samuel, Mr. Rohan Dakshini with Ms.Shweta Jaydev, Ms.Janaki Garde, Mr. Chandrajit Das, Ms.Feroza Bharucha, Mr. Shamant Satiya and Ms.Arya Gadagkar i/b. M/s. Rashmikant and Partners - Advocates for Defendant in LPETN(L) No.25052 of 2023 and IA(L) No.25049 of 2023 in S(L) No.25045 of 2023; Mr. Aditya Mehta a/w Mr. Amit Mishra a/w Mr. Azeem Samuel, Mr. Nazish Alam, Mitakshara Goyal, Mr. Shivam Singhania and Mr. Shiva Gaur i/b. Svarniti Law Offices - Advocates for Defendant in LPETN(L) No.25427 of 2023 and IA(L) No.25428 of 2023 in S(L) No.25426 of 2023.; Mr. Nimay Dave a/w Mr. Amit Mishra a/w Mr. Azeem Samuel, Mr. Nazish Alam, Mitakshara Goyal, Mr. Shivam Singhania and Mr. Shiva Gaur i/b. Svarniti Law Offices - Advocates for Defendant in LPETN(L) No.25298 of 2023 and IA(L) No.25300 of 2023 in S(L) No.25293 of 2023.
IMPORTANT POINT
The place of communication of resignation can constitute part of the cause of action for determining jurisdiction, even if the resignation is sent from a different location.
Headnote:
LEAVE PETITION - JURISDICTION - CLAUSE XII OF LETTERS PATENT, SECTIONS 3, 4, 39 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT - The court analyzed the jurisdictional aspects under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, determining that leave is not required when the cause of action arises wholly within the jurisdiction. The court interpreted the provisions of the Indian Contract Act regarding communication and acceptance, concluding that part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai due to the acceptance of resignation being communicated there, despite the resignation being sent from another location. This influenced the court's decision to grant leave for the suits to proceed.
Fact of the Case:
Six Leave Petitions were filed by an airline company against former pilots/officers regarding jurisdictional issues for suits related to employment agreements. The plaintiffs argued that part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, while the defendants contended that the court lacked jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the defendants were not primarily based in Mumbai, part of the cause of action, specifically the acceptance of resignation, occurred in Mumbai. The court emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be conferred if it does not exist, but in this case, the jurisdiction clause in the agreements and the circumstances surrounding the resignation supported the court's jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suits based on the cause of action arising in Mumbai and the interpretation of the jurisdiction clause in the employment agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that jurisdiction is determined by where the cause of action arises, which includes the place of communication of resignation. The acceptance of resignation in Mumbai constituted part of the cause of action, thus granting the court jurisdiction under the agreements.
Final Decision: The Leave Petitions were allowed, granting the court jurisdiction to hear the suits.
JUDGMENT
1. All these six Leave Petitions are filed in six separate Suits. These suits are filed by Airline company against their erstwhile Pilots/Officers. Normally, the issue of grant of leave is an issue in between the Petitioner-Plaintiff and the Court. Whereas in these Leave Petitions, the Defendants have appeared in pursuance of private notice given on the Interim Applications filed in the suits.
2. All of them have assisted the Court while deciding the issue of grant of leave. Even though Leave Petition is filed in Suit (Stamp) No.25426 of 2023, the Defendant therein resides in Mumbai, and as such the leave is not required. Leave Petition (L) No.25427 of 2023 is disposed of.
3. According to the Petitioner in all these Leave Petitions, this Court will be having exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the suit. They have also pleaded that part of cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of this Court and that's why leave is sought. Whereas, according to the Respondent in all these Leave Petitions, this Court will not be having jurisdiction and as such leave cannot be granted. There are affidavits in reply filed by the Defendants. They have opposed the Leave Petitions. There are also affidavit in rejoinder filed.
4. As said above, grant or refusal of leave is an exparte affair but in these petitions, the respondents have appeared and they are opposing grant of leave. This Court is aware that while deciding the issue, this Court is not supposed to conduct an inquiry in detail. But on the basis of submissions and replies, this Court will certainly consider whether on the basis of averments in the plaint and petition leave can be granted.
5. On this background, I have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Dwarkadas and learned Senior Advocate Mr.Khambata and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Andiyarujina in all these Petitions. The lead arguments for the Respondents is advanced by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Khambata and it was adopted by rest of learned Advocates.
CLAUSE XII OF LETTERS PATENT
6. It is true that clause XII of Letters Patent is in two parts. The first part, deals with situation wherein leave is not required. It is applicable :--
a. when land or property is situate within the jurisdiction of this Court.
b. It is applicable when cause of action has arisen wholly within jurisdiction of this Court and
c. when Defendant resides, carries on business or work for gain within the jurisdiction of this Court.
In these contingencies, leave is not required. Leave is required only when a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. When we apply the parameters laid down in clause XII of the Letters Patent to the facts of these petitions, it is true that the dispute does not relate to immovable property or land. Except one Defendant, none of the Defendants are residing or carrying on business or works for gain at Mumbai. So the issue is narrowed down, whether the entire cause of action has arisen in Mumbai or whether part of cause of action has arisen in Mumbai.
7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Khambata laid emphasis on variance in the case pleaded in the plaint on one hand and case pleaded in the Leave Petition, on the other hand. For better understanding the relevant paragraphs of the plaint are reproduced below :-
'71. It is submitted that the cause of action for filing the instant suit first arose on 30.08.2023 i.e. the date on which the Defendant abruptly tendered resignation of her employment with the Plaintiff without complying with the terms of the Agreements. The cause of action further arose on every date thereafter as the Plaintiff has failed to report for duty despite being called on to do so. It is submitted that a continuing cause of action is arising in as much as the Defendant continues to fail to comply with the stipulations of the Employment Agreement and the Training Agreement.
74. The Plantiff states that this Hon'ble Court alone has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present lis. It is further s
