SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal arising out of a judgment delivered by Ghose, J. on the 11th June 1970 revoking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The Union of India instituted the suit on the 2nd Jan. 1969 being Suit No. 39 of 1969 against the defendant M/s. M. Kuppus-wamy Naicker, who carries on business at Madras inter alia, for a decree for Rs. 2,14,259. 38p. or in the alternative accounts be taken of the transactions had by and between the defendant and the plaintiff and decree be passed under Order 20 Rule 16 of the Civil P. C. or in such form as the Court may think proper.

( 2 ) THE basis of the plaintiff's claim is that the defendant was employed as the plaintiff's agent to handle the import of 3338. 680 long tons of steel materials which the plaintiff had imported through the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta un der the U. S. Development Loan Fund Scheme at Madras.

( 3 ) IN terms of the contract the defendant was to clear the goods at the Tort of Madras, pay or incur all necessary expenses in connection with the clearing of the said goods and despatch the game to the various consignees or parties whom the Iron and Steel Controller had named. The defendant was to get a commission as per agreement between the parties on the actual tonnage of goods which the defendant had handled as such agent.

( 4 ) IT is alleged that the defendant cleared all the goods imported into the Port of Madras and delivered and/or despatched the same to various persons nominated and/or named by the plaintiff through the Iron and Steel Controller as per terms of the agreement between the parties. The defendant was to realise from the said nominees or allottees of the said goods 100 per cent of bills charging base price with 'admissible extras. '

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff the defendant realised or ought to have realised from the said nominees or allottees on account of the said goods despatched or delivered to them am aggregate sum of Rs. 23,88,883. 55p. The defendant paid to the plaintiff only a sum of Rs. 19,31,769,48 P. The defendant was entitled only to a sum of Rs. 2,42. 854. 69p. as commission. This a balance of Rs. 2,14,259. 38 p. , according to the plaintiff, is due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff. In the plaint it is alleged that the agreement between the parties was entered into at 33, Netaji Subhas Road in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court.

( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge has rightly pointed out that in an application for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the Court has to proceed on the basis that the allegations made in the plaint are true. The learned trial Judge has, therefore, accepted as correct the allegation that the contract was made in Calcutta. But his Lordship is of view that only a minor part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The most overwhelming part of the cause of action, the learned trial Judge is of opinion, arose at Madras, outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Trial Judge is of the view that the defendant has to call witnesses from Madras and also bring documents from Madras to establish the defendant's case. Principally on the ground of balance of convenience, Ghose J. , has revoked the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

( 7 ) IT is well settled that in giving or refusing leave or maintaining or revoking leave the Court would ordinarily take into consideration the balance of convenience and may, if the balance is definitely in favour of the defendant, apply the doctrine of forum convenience, vide Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal reported in AIR 1949 Cal 495.

( 8 ) GHOSE J. , has applied this principle to the facts of this case in arriving at bis Lordship's decision.

( 9 ) IN the affidavit in support of the summons by K. Rajendran, the sole proprietor of Messrs. M. Kuppuswamy Naicker, affirmed on the 12th Sept. 1969 it has been admitted that a negligib

Click Here to Read the rest of this document