The court ruled that without a part cause of action occurring within its jurisdiction, the plaint for defamation could not be maintained, highlighting jurisdictional boundaries as dictated by Sections 19 and 20 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Arindam Mukherjee, J.

1. This is an application filed by the sole defendant for rejection of the plaint filed in CS/169/2024 on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the suit. Although, the prayer is for rejection of the plaint, but there is no separate prayer for revocation of leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent 1865 by obtaining which the plaintiff invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for the plaint to be received by this Court to institute the suit.

2. After hearing the argument advanced by the defendant and the response from the side of the plaintiff, it appears that the application is for return of the plaint on the ground that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to receive, try and determine coupled with the forum inconvenience principal.

Submission by the defendant :-

A. The principal argument is that the defendant ordinarily resides at Guwahati, Assam. The defendant on being selected went to Sikkim to perform the job of a management trainee in the plaintiff university. The defendant, while working at Sikkim, allegedly faced certain unpleasant situation in connection whereof the defendant had published and/or posted certain material in the social media through internet. This, according to the plaintiff, on being accessed and read has tarnished its image thereby defaming the plaintiff University leading to the institution of the suit for defamation against the defendant before this Court.

B. The defendant says assuming without admitting that the materials published by the defendant to be defamatory and such materials have been read at Kolkata then also the damages, if any, due to such alleged defamatory statements have taken place either at Bidhannagar or at New Delhi or at Sikkim outside the jurisdiction of this Court and, as such, this Court in any event does not have the jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the suit.

C. It is submitted by the defendant that the defendant is an ordinary resident of Guwahati and she was working at Sikkim so the place wherefrom the alleged defamatory materials can or could have been posted is either at Guwahati or at Sikkim but not at Kolkata.

D. The defendant further submits that pursuant to the unpleasant experience, the defendant allegedly met with while in the University Campus at Sikkim was reported to the National Human Rights Commission from Sikkim to the Commission at New Delhi. The said Commission had sent the letter to the University at Sikkim and sought for its response. The University (plaintiff) instead of responding to the queries of the Commission referred the matter to the Internal Complaint Committee (in short, ICC) constituted under The “Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013”. It is also the case of the defendant that the University in order to put the defendant into inconvenience has instituted the suit in this Court to drag the plaintiff to submit to the jurisdiction of this Court when the materials, evidence and witnesses in connection with the alleged offence of sexual harassment is at Sikkim and Guwahati. The complaint according to the defendant had been admittedly made prior to the institution of the suit.

E. The defendant relies upon the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) and Clause 12 of the Letters Patent as also a judgment reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del. 9135 (Mahadev I. Todale -Versus- Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) in support of her contention regarding jurisdiction, cause of action and forum inconvenience.

The plaintiff’s submission :-

I. The plaintiff on the other hand submits that admittedly the plaintiff has its registered office at Delhi and its head office at Bidhannagar, Kolkata. The University is situated at Sikkim. The plaintiff says that in the present era when any post or publication is made in the social media then the same can be accessed all over