The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the jurisdiction clause in the contract letter, and its impact on the court's territorial jurisdiction.

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

IA 9780/2014 (filed by the applicant-defendant No. 3)

1. By this order, I would decide the application i.e. IA No. 9780/2014 filed by the applicant-defendant No. 3 under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC read with Order 8 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, with a prayer to return the plaint to the plaintiff on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

2. Some of the relevant facts are, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff impleading the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 with a prayer against defendant Nos. 1 to 5, to award equity shares in defendant No. 5 company to the plaintiff or value equivalent to the appropriate value of equity shares having a face value of Rs. 52,20,000/- per year from 2009 till 2012 on the dates of vesting set out in para 11 of the plaint. In the alternative, he sought a prayer of recovery of Rs. 1,91,40,000/- with interest.

3. Suffice to state, the non-applicant/plaintiff was appointed as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Asia-Pacific and Global Executive Sales Director of the applicant/defendant No. 3 from 2007 till August 31, 2012 when he resigned from his position as CEO.

4. The case of the applicant/defendant No. 3 in the application is that this Court has no jurisdiction, whether territorial or otherwise to entertain the suit in view of the fact, that, not only the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the contract of employment dated April 4, 2007 contains a jurisdiction clause, which provides for exclusive jurisdiction for Courts at Noida regarding any disputes pertaining to the said agreement.

5. A reply to the application was filed by the non-applicant/plaintiff.

6. It is the contention of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant-defendant No. 3 that this Court, while examining an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC would only consider the facts as stated in the plaint. He would apart from reiterating the grounds urged in the application, would state, the registered office/head office of the applicant-defendant No. 3 is at Noida, Uttar Pradesh. He states, apart from that, the defendant No. 3 is having its office at Pune and Chennai and not in Delhi. Even the offer of employment letter along with the terms and conditions of documents/Non-Disclosure and Code of Practice Agreement was sent to the non-applicant/plaintiff at Singapore. As per the offer of employment letter, signed copy of the same along with the enclosures were to be delivered at Noida, Uttar Pradesh. It is the case of the applicant-defendant No. 3 that even the Annual General Meetings referred to by the plaintiff were held at Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

7. The non-applicant/plaintiff had initially filed an application under Section 20(b) read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave of this Court to implead defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 having their office locations out of Delhi, being fully aware that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction over the said defendants.

8. The defendant No. 4 is the Chief Executive Officer of the applicant-defendant No. 3 and is a resident of Delhi, who has been made a party in his official capacity and not in his personal capacity. Therefore, the residence of defendant No. 4 in Delhi would be irrelevant. The defendant No. 6 is the recruitment company that had negotiated the employment, contractual terms and offer details on behalf of the defendant No. 3-applicant.

9. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant-defendant No. 3 would heavily rely upon the judgments in the cases of L.T. Foods Ltd. Vs. Heritage Foods (India) Ltd. (2014) 210 DLT 721, Saleem Bhai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 557, Begum Sabiha Sultan Vs. Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan (2007) 4 SCC 343, Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2013) 9 SCC 32, New Mog