The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the court and the maintainability of the suit are determined by the agreements executed between the parties and the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court of Singapore.

M/s. Sharon Solutions Ltd., have filed a suit for recovery of Rs.7,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores only) as damages by pleading, that the plaintiff is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The suit is filed against defendants / respondents, who do not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The suit has been filed in this Court, by pleading that 3rd and 4th defendants have ventured into establishing their own business in the same field as that of plaintiff in gross transgression and blatant breach of the terms and commitments agreed upon by the 1st defendant under the two Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) dated 20.12.2004 and 21.12.2005 and the non disclosure agreement dated 15.03.2007.

3. In Para 19 of the plaint, it is pleaded by the plaintiff / non applicant, that the defendants having achieved their collective mission in an unholy manner by entrenching upon the business substratum of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant by way of adding insult to injury sought to pre-empt any legal action on the side of the plaintiff by moving the Court at Singapore against the guarantors invoking the laws of Singapore for the recovery of the debt. It is learnt that they have also obtained a decree regarding which legal steps are being initiated as advised by their Attorneys at Singapore, therefore, the said dispute has no relevance or bearing upon the present claim of the plaintiff, especially having regard to the nature of agreements entered between the parties at different points of time.

4. In para-26 of the plaint, the stand of the plaintiff / non applicant is that the cause of action for the suit arose in Chennai within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, where the plaintiff company is incorporated and having its registered office, and that the MOU was executed between the plaintiff and the 1st respondent at Chennai, thereafter, on various dates when purchase orders were placed at Chennai and supply and delivery were effected by the 1st defendant at Chennai. On 17.03.2007, when the third and fourth defendants were inducted as representatives nominees of the 1st defendant as per resolution passed by the plaintiff, when the 1st defendant had through their representative nominees jointly managed and controlled the business of the plaintiff company at Chennai, when the third and fourth defendants indulged in acts of acquisition of information, concepts and devices, customer profiles and the entire gamut of the business operations of the plaintiff in August 2007 when the 1st defendant promoted the 2nd defendant company in India through the third defendant, when the 2nd defendant started having direct business transactions with the customers/clientele of the plaintiff during the period of the contract and six months after the expiry thereof, when the plaintiff suffered loss to the tune of 29.04 crores as estimated under their Auditor Certificate on account of the breach of contract by the 1st defendant and when the other defendants contributed to the said breach, on 4.1.2010 when the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants, on 19.1.2010 when the 2nd defendant issued a reply notice denying the liability to pay damages, and subsequently when the claim of the plaintiff remains undischarged by the defendants.

5. A.No.1318 of 2012 has been moved by the 2nd defendant to reject the plaint, on the ground, that all the defendants are residing and have office outside the jurisdiction of this Court and that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

6. It is submitted, that cause of action took place at Singapore outside the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to try this case. The plaint is sought to be rejected, both on the point of jurisdiction and cause of action.

7. It is submitted, that the plaintiff has solely relied upon the alleged MOU dated 20.12.2004, which is a concocted document and created by the plaintif