SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Cal) 268

High Court Of Calcutta
J. K. BISWAS
SALOO CHOUDHURY - Appellant
Versus
NISSAN EUROPE N.V. - Respondent
G. A.  3149  Of  2003
Decided On : 04/23/2002

Advocates Appeared:
Jayanta Mitra, R.MITRA, RANJAN BACHAWAT, S.N.MUKHERJEE

A suit for damages for breach of contract, fraud and defamation can be filed in a court within the jurisdiction of which substantial part of the cause of action arose.

Headnote:

JURISDICTION - LEAVE GRANTED UNDER CLAUSE 12 OF LETTERS PATENT - REVOCATION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - SECTION 230 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - VEXATIOUS LITIGATION - SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DEFAMATION - JURISDICTION OF COURT - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 230 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - VEXATIOUS LITIGATION.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs, motor enthusiasts and rallyists, circumnavigated the globe in a Nissan Sunny car manufactured by defendant 2. They alleged that defendant 3, the advertising agent of defendants 1 and 2, breached the terms of a contract by using their photographs and the circumnavigation event to show that the plaintiffs were endorsing their products. The plaintiffs also alleged fraud and defamation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the offer made by the defendants was accepted by the plaintiffs by actual performance in Kolkata and that substantial part of the cause of action for filing the suit arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court. It also found that the balance of convenience was overwhelmingly in favor of trial of the suit in the court. The court further found that defendant 3 could be sued for fraud and defamation even though it acted for disclosed principals. Finally, the court held that the suit was not a piece of vexatious litigation.

Issues: 1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. Whether the balance of convenience was in favor of trial of the suit in the court. 3. Whether defendant 3 could be sued for damages for breach of contract, fraud and defamation. 4. Whether the suit was a piece of vexatious litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit because substantial part of the cause of action for filing the suit arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court. 2. The balance of convenience is overwhelmingly in favor of trial of the suit in the court because the plaintiffs have chosen their natural forum and the fact that they are globally known does not imply that they can very conveniently go to the Netherlands or to the United Kingdom for suing the defendants. 3. Defendant 3 can be sued for fraud and defamation even though it acted for disclosed principals because this is not an action pure and simple for damages claimed for breach of contract. 4. The suit is not a piece of vexatious litigation because the amount claimed is reasonable according to the plaintiffs though it may appear to be huge one according to defendant 3.

Final Decision: The application for revocation of leave granted to the plaintiffs under clause 12 of the Letters Patent and dismissal of the suit is dismissed.

J. K. BISWAS, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT 3 in the suit has filed this application for revocation of leave granted to the plaintiffs under clause 12 of the Letters Patent and also for dismissal of the suit.

( 2 ) THE case made out in the plaint is this: the plaintiffs are motor enthusiasts and rallyists. In 1989 they circumnavigated the glove in a Contessa car manufactured by Hindustan Motors, an Indian company.

( 3 ) THE circumnavigation was recorded in the Guinness Book of Records as the first and fastest one. Since a British Army team broke their record, in 1991 they undertook the circumnavigation for the second time, and this time in a Nissan Sunny Car manufactured by Nissan Motors (GB) Limited (defendant 2 ). They set up a new record, which was entered in the Guinness Book of Records as the fastest circumnavigation round the world by car. Although the plaintiffs became well known globally, and were sought after for endorsement and promotion, particularly in relation to automobiles, they however, by choice and as a matter of principle, refused to endorse or promote products and services, and refrained from lending their names to advertise, sell or promote products. Defendants 1 and 2 manufacture distributes market and sell motor vehicles. Defendant 3 is the advertising agent of defendants 1 and 2. On or about December 15th, 1999 one Ms. Ghislaine Bakker of defendant contracted by the plaintiffs at 12c, Camac Street, Kolkata; she wanted the plaintiffs' photographs and a short story about their trip in the Nissan Sunny car. She represented that the photographs and the write up would be used for a non commercial booklet to be published by defendants 1 and 2. Believing the representation the plaintiffs sent their photographs and newspaper reports containing details of their circumnavigation. In breach of the terms and conditions the defendants utilized the plaintiffs' photographs and the circumnavigation event to show that the plaintiffs were endorsing their products. The defendants distributed the brochures to both their actual customers and prospective customers. Their acts amounted to commission of breach of contract and fraud; and the acts also caused loss of the plaintiffs' goodwill and reputation. The plaintiff became subject matter of ridicule, and their standing was lowered in the estimation of right thinking members of the society, who started shunning their association. The loss suffered by them, if reasonably assessed, would be US$ 25 million, and the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate them.

( 4 ) MAKING out a case as, briefly, narrated above, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree against the defendants for Rs. 122. 5 crores. They also prayed for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from printing, publishing or circulating any book or printed matter containing their photographs or anything about their circumnavigation event.

( 5 ) MR. S. N. Mookherjee, senior advocate appeared for the petitioning defendant 3. He submits that the leave is liable to be revoked and the suit should be dismissed, because (a) no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, (b) the balance of convenience is against trial of the suit in this Court, (c) since defendant 3 acted for disclosed principals, the suit against it is hit by section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and (d) it is a vexatious litigation. Mr. Jayanta Mitra, senior advocate appears for the plaintiffs. His contention is that this application should be dismissed with costs.

( 6 ) REGARDING cause of action, Mr. Mookherjee's submissions are these: statements in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint can at best refer to an offer. As will appear from paragraph 8 the place where the contract was entered into has not been mentioned. Since the offer and acceptance took place through telephone, the contract, if there was one, would be deemed to have been made only in the Netherlands where communication of the acceptance of the





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top