M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.

The plaintiffs filed the suit in C.S. No. 984 of 1999 to injunct the defendant from imitating/copying the plaintiff's trading style and trade mark 'IBS' by use of the identical name/trading style/ trade mark 'IBS' as part of the defendant's corporate name etc., and passing off the businesses, services and products of the defendant as that of the plaintiffs or as business, services or products connected/associated with the plaintiffs and also for allied reliefs.

2. Before the suit was filed, since the defendant is residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiffs filed Application No. 3799 of 1999 requesting to grant leave to sue the defendant before this Court. By the order dated 2-11-1999 this Court ordered notice to defendant/respondent. Accordingly, notice was served. However, the respondent neither appeared in person nor defended the same through the counsel. Therefore, this Court after hearing the counsel for the plaintiffs and perusing the records and the authorities placed before this Court, passed an order on 14-12-1999 granted leave to sue against the respondent and allowed the said application.

3. After the suit was numbered in C.S. No. 984 of 1999, this Court in this application in O.A. No. 796 of 1999 on basis of the documents produced before this Court found prima facie to grant interim injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from using the trade name and trading style 'IBS' or IBS Technologies and passing off of the respondent's business goods or services as that of the plaintiffs' products and services until further orders of this Court pending suit. The applicants were also directed to send the private notice by complying with the Order 39, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code Accordingly, after service of notice, the plaintiffs/applicants filed an affidavit of compliance under Order 39, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code before this Court. At this time, on service of the notice, the documents and the copy of the interim order, the defendant/respondent has rushed to this Court and filed a counter-affidavit dated 17-1-2000 requesting to dismiss the interim application as well as the suit on raising various points including the question of jurisdiction of this Court stating that there is no cause of action at Chennai to enable this Court to entertain the suit.

4. Mr. U. N. R. Rao, the learned senior counsel representing M/s. Kurian and Kurian Associates appearing for the plaintiffs/applicants and Mr. Muralidharan, the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent would argue at length when the matter was heard on various dates.

5. Let us now refer to the facts, culled out from the affidavits and documents filed by both the parties, that are relevant and required to have the full understanding of the case as well as the questions that arise in this case, which are as follows:

"(a) International Business Services Group Private Limited, Trivandrum is the first plaintiff which is incorporated under the Companies Act. V. K. Mathews, the second plaintiff is responsible for setting up and developing the business of the first plaintiff-Company. The second plaintiff in early 1995 started business under the name of the International Business Services Group (IBS) in Jumeira, Dubai, U.A.E.

(b) The second plaintiff using the trading style 'IBS' is dealing in Computer Softwear Development Services. In 1995 and 1996 he contacted various people in India and obtained suitable space for locating the Offshore Software Development Centre. In the meantime, he had detailed discussion with the Swissair Group and Emirates Group from mid-1995 and commenced the arrangement for entering into a long term agreement for supply of Software Services for their Group.

(c) Due to the efforts of the second plaintiff, the trading style 'IBS' as signifying business of the second plaintiff was well known in India and abroad by the end of the year 1995. For the purpose of expansion and continuity, on 23-9-1996 the s