P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by the defendant bank for an injunction restraining the plaintiff from proceeding with the suit here in this Court and for stay of all further proceedings of this suit. The application was made on a Notice of Motion dated 16-8-1954. This suit was instituted on 1-4-1954 by the plaintiff against the defendant bank for the recovery of Rs. 15,625/ being the value of an alleged undischarged and outstanding demand draft.

( 2 ) THE demand draft was issued by the defendant bank's branch office at Penang for 10,000/- drawn on that Bank's Singapore branch. The draft, it is alleged, was drawn in the name of Mr. Hansraj Bajaj and payable to him at the Singapore office of the defendant. That is the plaintiff's own allegation in the plaint. According to the plaintiff, he purchased this demand draft from his brother Bikramjit Bajaj on 5-4-1951. On 7-4-1951 the plaintiff and his said brother while proceeding from Penang to Singapore met with a serious motor accident as a result of which his said brother Bjkramji Bajaj died. It is the plaintiff's case that the draft along with other papers was taken possession of by the police from the plaintiff while he was lying unconscious in the hospital at Johar Baru. The plaintiff alleges that the said draft was thereafter sent by the police to one Karan Singh. Karan Singh sent the draft to the Branch office of the defendant bank at Penang. The defendant bank on 24-4-1951 cancelled the said draft and credited the proceeds thereof to the account of the deceased Bikramjit Baja] maintained under the name and style of Hansraj Bikramjit with the Penang branch of the defendant bank. It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant's Penang branch had no right to cancel the draft or credit the proceeds thereof in the manner as it did. Plaintiff contends that the draft still remains undischarged and outstanding. Plaintiff, therefore, claims from the defendant the sum of Rs. 15,625/- as being the equivalent for $ 10,000/ -.

( 3 ) THESE facts will show that no part of the transaction or the cause of action for the suit arose within the jurisdiction of this Court or anywhere near it. The whole of the case and the disputes in connection therewith took place either at Penang or at Singapore. The only ground on which the Jurisdiction of this Court is claimed by the plaintiff is that the defendant bank has its Head Office in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court.

( 4 ) THE defendant bank in this application states that this choice of forum by the plaintiff is 'mala fide', vexatious, embarrassing and Intended to defeat justice by preventing the defendant from bringing material and proper evidence to this Court for a just determination of the disputes between the parties. It not only contends that the whole of the cause of action arose at Penang and Singapore which are foreign countries but it also says that all the necessary witnesses and documents of the bank are at Penang and Singapore.

( 5 ) IT is plain from a consideration of the different cases made on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant that one of the major controversies in the suit is, who was the owner of the draft in suit and how the draft came back to the possession of the applicant defendant bank. The plaintiff respondent's own case is that he was in possession of the draft and the draft was taken possession of by the police authorities at Penang from him. That is disputed by the defendant bank. This dispute means that the police authorities and the hospital authorities at Johar Baru Hospital at Singapore who are public servants of a foreign administration will have to be called here as necessary witnesses, apart from Karan Singh who is a resident there. Then again the issue of the draft and its subsequent credit by the bank can only be shown from the defendant bank's branch office at Penang. If the suit is continued here, then all those bank documents will have to be sent for the purpose of be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document