The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action for a suit is not solely determined by the location of the defendant's registered office, but also by various other facts having their nexus at the place where the suit is filed.

IA Nos.14511/2007

1. This is an application by the defendant Nos.1 seeking rejection of the plaint. The applicant/defendant No.1 has contended that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as whole of the cause of action regarding termination of the services of the plaintiff has arisen at NOIDA where defendant No.1 is having its headquarter and principal office. According to the defendant No.1/applicant the service of plaintiff was terminated from NOIDA and the Secretary General of defendant No.1 sits in NOIDA and all the notices to plaintiff were issued from NOIDA including termination letter dated 6th August, 2001.

2. The defendant No.1/applicant has contended various facts in the application for rejection of plaint in support of his plea that cause of action has not arisen at Delhi. The defendant No.1/applicant has pleaded that the

meeting dated 1st April, 2006 of the Governing Body was held at its headquarters in NOIDA where it was resolved to engage the services of plaintiff as Executive Director. The plaintiff was posted at the headquarters of defendant no.1 at NOIDA and he was receiving salary from NOIDA office only. It is also alleged that the General Executive of defendant No.1 sits in NOIDA and principal place of business of defendant is in NOIDA and the service of the plaintiff was also terminated by letter dated 6th August, 2007 from NOIDA office.

3. For rejection of plaint defendant No.1/applicant has also relied on the order dated 21st May, 2007 passed by the learned CJM, Gautam Budh Nagar, NOIDA in FIR No.586/2007 registered at P.S.Sector 20, NOIDA against the unlawful and illegal activities of the plaintiff during his tenure with defendant No.1 at NOIDA office. The applicant/defendant No.1 has further contended that the plaintiff had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Courts at U.P by filing a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad for quashing the FIR and that in the said writ petition he had not raised the objection that he was not posted at the NOIDA office. It is further contended that the plaintiff has not disclosed about the filing of the writ petition. In the circumstances, it is contended that the Courts at Delhi have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

4. Rejection of the plaint is also sought on the ground that a suit seeking a declaration that an order of termination is null and void is not maintainable. The rejection of plaint is also sought on the ground of suppression of materials facts, some of which facts have been detailed in the application. The rejection of plaint is also sought on the ground that the plaintiff cannot seek specific performance of agreement for personal service.

5. The application is contested by the plaintiff/non-applicant contending that the application and the reply has been signed only by defendant No.2 and it has not been signed on behalf of defendant No.1. The facts alleged in the application are also allegedly sworn by defendant No.2 in his personal name though affirming facts relating to defendant No.1. The plaintiff/non-applicant has also alleged that certain facts pertaining to defendant No.1 has been withheld by defendant No.2 to mislead this Hon’ble Court. The plaintiff/non- applicant has also pointed out various patent defects in the averments made in the application and affidavits.

6. It is asserted that the plaintiff is an Executive Director of defendant No.1 appointed by a valid Governing body at its meeting dated 1st April, 2006 which had not acceded to defendant No.2’s volition to be the Secretary General. It is contended that defendant No.2 was terminated from service by defendant No.1 on 17th January, 2008. The plaintiff has denied that his job was restricted to NOIDA/U.P and it is contended that his job is spread all over the world including Delhi. It is contended by the plaintiff that in the suit he has only sought a declaration that the special auditors report dated 1st June, 2007 is null