The judgment emphasizes the importance of full disclosure of facts by the plaintiff and discusses the interpretation of jurisdictional clauses in agreements between parties.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff for return of the plaint, on the ground that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction. The suit was filed against fifteen defendants, namely (i) Abiss Textile Solutions Private Ltd; (ii) Shree Pushkar Chemicals & Fertilisers Limited; (iii) Gautam Gopikishan Makharia; (iv) Puneet Gopikishan Makharia; (v) Ajay Kanwar; and other individual defendants (who are not named for the purpose of this judgment). The suit claimed various relief’s, including permanent injunction restraining disclosure and use of plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information including for manufacturing, marketing and selling any product as being manufactured by the plaintiff; and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to reveal the particulars of the third parties to whom the defendants have parted with or revealed the confidential information of the plaintiff. Other consequential injunctive relief’s were sought.

2. At the stage of issue of summons and notice for interim relief’s, an ad interim ex parte temporary injunction order was issued. After the proceedings commenced, the learned single judge noted that all defendants had been served and the seventh defendant had been proceeded ex parte. The defendants had filed applications for return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), i.e. IA No.10808/2016 and IA No. 8693/2016. The ld. Single Judge heard these applications on 13th February, 2018. During the course of that hearing, the applicant Defendant Nos.1 to 4 had contended that the ex parte relief was obtained by making false averments, to wit, that the plaintiff’s office was at 14/5, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi-110008 as mentioned in the memo of parties with the plaint. It was urged that the Pin Code No.110008 pertains to Patel Nagar and property No.14/5, Main Mathura Road falls in Faridabad and does not fall in New Delhi as was wrongly represented to this Court. The plaintiff’s counsel then stated that “No. 14/5, Main Mathura Road is situated in Faridabad and states that the office of the plaintiff earlier was in property No.14/5, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad but had been shifted to Jasola, New Delhi and the plaintiff mistakenly in the plaint pleaded the office to be at 14/5 Main Mathura Road, New Delhi”. The ld. Single Judge then recorded that one Mr. Avinash Kumar, plaintiff’s legal counsel was present in the Court and he stated that “the office of the plaintiff at Jasola is not owned by the plaintiff but is in a Business Centre and was taken in September, 2016.” The ld. Single Judge noted that the suit was filed in May, 2016, and then recorded that :

“11. While this order is being dictated, Mr. Avinash Kumar, Legal Counsel states that he was mistaken in this respect also and now states that in September, 2016, the office of the plaintiff was at Noida. However, on further enquiry, since when was it at Noida, he states that he was not even in the employment of the plaintiff at that time.

12. It is quite obvious that the plaintiff and its Directors including Mr. Anuraag Kothari who has instituted this suit and has filed the affidavit accompanying the plaint have not been making a clean breast of the facts before this Court.

13. Let Mr. Anuraag Kothari, Senior Commercial Counsel of the plaintiff appear before this Court on 21st February, 2018."

A copy of the affidavit of Mr. Anurag Kothari, plaintiff’s Senior Counsel verified on 20th February, 2018 along with documents was handed over in the Court.

3. The ld. Single Judge, after considering the submissions of the parties and the explanation given by the plaintiff, was of the opinion that the averments made and the documents on record, showed that the suit was not maintainable before this court; he therefore, directed it to be returned, on the ground that the alleged cause of action based on which the suit was filed (i.e. that the defendant nos. 5 to 15 had conspired and obtained