Jurisdiction exists in Kolkata as agreements were executed there, and the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was that of agent, not servant, under the Commercial Courts Act.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The defendant nos. 1, 4, 6 & 8 have filed their respective application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for return of the plaint for lack of jurisdiction of this Court.

2. Mr. Rajendra Solani, Leaned Counsel appearing for the defendants submits that the defendants have never come to Kolkata during their engagement with the plaintiff. He further submits that all the meetings, agreements and communications made between the plaintiff and the defendants before the appointments of the defendants were taken place at NCR, Delhi. He further submits that the WhatsApp conversation between the representative of the plaintiff, namely, Narain Holani and the defendant no. 1 took place at Andaz (Hyatt), Delhi on 24th August, 2018.

3. Mr. Solani further submits that the defendant no. 1 had been appointed as Group President of the plaintiff with effect from 1st November, 2018 and was asked to report for work at Panoli, Bharuch District, Gujarat. He further submits that none of the cause of action between either of the defendants with the plaintiff was occurred at Kolkata within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

4. Mr. Solani submits that admittedly the manufacturing facilities are situated at Panoli, District-Bharuch, Gujarat, outside of the jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that mere the office of the plaintiff is situated at Kolkata but no cause of action has occurred at Kolkata as neither the defendants came to Kolkata nor any agreement signed between the defendants and the plaintiff was entered at Kolkata.

5. Mr. Solani submits that the plaintiff has filed the suit for grant of compensation. The place of work where the alleged cause of action arose is Panoli, District-Bharuch, Gujarat and thus, as per Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the local limits of the jurisdiction to file the suit against the defendants arose at Panoli, District-Bharuch, Gujrat not at Kolkata.

6. Mr. Solani submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit in the Commercial Division of this Court though the suit filed by the plaintiff is not commercial in nature and not coming under any of the provisions of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. He further submits that as per the case made out by the plaintiff, the relation between the plaintiff and the defendants are of workmen and employer and thus the suit is not maintainable before the Commercial Court.

7. Mr. Aritra Basu, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that the applications filed by the defendants are not maintainable under law. He submits that the appointment letter issued by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 was executed at Kolkata and as such this Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

8. Mr. Basu submits that along with the appointment letter, the details of the salary of the defendant no. 1 has been prescribed and the said details of the salary was also issued from the Head Office of the plaintiff at Kolkata and the defendant no. 1 had signed the said details in the office of the plaintiff at Kolkata and thus it cannot be said that no cause of action arose at Kolkata.

9. Mr. Basu submitted that after the appointment of the defendant no. 1 as Group President, the defendant nos. 2 to 14 were appointed on the request of the defendant no. 1 and the appointment orders of the defendant nos. 2 to 14 were also issued from the registered office of the plaintiff at Kolkata.

10. Mr. Basu submitted that the Company, namely, Merchem Limited which was a manufacturing plant and is engaged in the same line of business were closed for about 2-3 years and in terms of the Resolution Plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal in January, 2019, the Merchem Limited has subsequently became a wholly owned subsidiary of the plaintiff company.

11. Mr. Basu submitted that subsequently the defendant no. 1 was made an Additional Director of Merchem Limited with effect from 19th April, 2019 and again o