Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Mr. Ritoban Sarkar, Mr. Sagnik Basu, Mr. Subhrojyoti Dey, Mr. Abhidipto Tarafder.
For the Defendant : Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee, Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Mr. Vishwarup Acharyya.

Key Points

• Case Identification: High Court at Calcutta, Krishna Rao, J., Baynee Industries (Plaintiff) vs. Rajiv Rosha (Defendant), G.A. No. 1 of 2023 in CS No. 232 of 2022, decided on 14-08-2024. (!) (!)

• Plaintiff's Claim: Suit for damages of Rs.19,77,48,220.13/- plus interest at 18% per annum due to defendant's wrongful interference with plaintiff's business via a patent. (!) (!)

• Defendant's Application: Filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of plaint on grounds including: barred by limitation; no cause of action; barred by law; non-joinder of parties; lack of territorial jurisdiction; arbitration clause; plaintiff's admissions; no crystallized claim; technical defects. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Defendant's Arguments on Cause of Action: No pleadings linking defendant's patent or actions to plaintiff's business loss; no explanation of how Tata Motors blocked orders due to defendant; inconsistent pleadings on supply stoppage (end-2019 vs. till Oct 2021); no specifics on damage period or causation. (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Plaintiff's Arguments on Cause of Action: Long-term supplier (since 1980/1995) of exhaust brake units to Tata Motors (95% share); learned in 2018 of defendant's rival supply using Tata drawings and patent claim; Tata shifted business to defendant portraying plaintiff as unauthorized; defendant served cease notice 15-01-2019; plaintiff opposed patent, revoked 01-01-2022; Tata blocked orders end-Jan 2019 causing quantified losses; referenced plaint paras 11,12,13,16,17,20,23,31,32. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Court's Consideration: Focused primarily on cause of action despite multiple grounds raised; other grounds not argued. (!)

• Relevant CPC Provision: Order VII Rule 11 CPC lists grounds for rejection, including (a) no cause of action, (d) barred by law. (!) (!) (!)

• Plaintiff's Factual Narrative in Plaint: Developed/supplied exhaust brake units per Tata specs from 1995; notice from defendant 28-05-2018 claiming patent on Tata-provided drawings; opposed and revoked patent 01-01-2022; Tata blocked orders end-Jan 2019 due to defendant's interference. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• Legal Principle Applied: Plaint rejection under O VII R 11 only if no cause of action disclosed on reading plaint as whole (averments taken as true); not based on defendant's statements; cause of action is bundle of material facts; cannot reject if some cause shown, even if plaintiff unlikely to succeed. (!) (!)

• Court's Finding: Plaint discloses cause of action via paras 17,20,23,31,32,33,34 read together, despite no explicit "cause of action" phrase. (!)

• Outcome: No merit in application; G.A. No. 1 of 2023 dismissed. (!) (!)

• Core Ratio: Plaint cannot be rejected if it discloses a cause of action, even if plaintiff's success uncertain. (!) (!)