The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of 'Leave to Sue' as a condition precedent to the court's jurisdiction, requiring factual examination and evidence presentation to determine the location of the cause of action and the applicability of jurisdiction.

M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Appellant/Applicant/ 1st Defendant has projected the present Original Side Appeal as against the order, dated 07.03.2013, in Application No.1958 of 2011, in C.S.No.120 of 2011, passed by the Learned Single Judge, in rejecting the Application.

2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, in Application No.1958 of 2011, in C.S.No.120 of 2011 (filed by the Appellant/1st Defendant), on 07.03.2013, has, inter alia, observed that 'the cause of action, for filing of the suit viz., is the Agreement dated 08.09.2007, which relates to the business activity in India, hence, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that no leave is required to maintain the suit, more so when the address of the 1st Defendant is clearly mentioned in their own documents as situate at Taramani, Chennai only because the address shown in the agreement is the Head Quarters at United States of America, that by itself will not entitle the Applicant/1st Defendant to raise the plea that leave has to be taken and the said plea is factually incorrect and has no basis.'

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/1st Defendant, the order of the Learned Single Judge, dated 07.03.2013, in Application No.1958 of 2011, in C.S.No.120 of 2011, in rejecting the Application, is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/1st Defendant urges before this Court that the Learned Single Judge, while rejecting the Application, has rendered a finding beyond the suit pleadings itself. Further, it is the stand of the Appellant/1st Defendant that nowhere in the Plaint, the Respondent/Plaintiff has pleaded that the entire cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and/or that the Appellant/1st Defendant has its place of business at Chennai.

5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/1st Defendant contends that the Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Respondent/Plaintiff itself claimed M/s.@ Road Inc., a Trimble Company, being c/o At Road Software India (P) Limited and in fact, the Company referred to in the documents/brochure of the Appellant/1st Defendant is only that of its Subsidiary, and the same being a separate legal entity. In effect, the plea of the Appellant/1st Defendant is that, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the Appellant/1st Defendant has its place of business at Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Court.

6. However, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/1st Defendant submits that 2nd and 3rd Defendants are separate entities in the eye of law and in fact, the Appellant/1st Defendant has the subsidiary companies in India.

7. The primordial submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/1st Defendant is that since the Appellant/1st Defendant is a company incorporated in U.S.A. [outside the jurisdiction of this Court] in terms of ingredients of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, leave ought to have been obtained by the Respondent/Plaintiff to entertain the Suit filed by it. In the instant case, since the Leave was not obtained for filing of the Suit by the Respondent/Plaintiff as a condition precedent, the Appellant/1st Defendant, as Applicant, filed Application No.1958 of 2011, to dismiss the Suit.

8. Lastly, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/1st Defendant submits that the Learned Single Judge failed to take into account of a very vital fact that the Annual Report was of the Trimble Group, which invariably would also refer to its wholly-owned Subsidiary which is a separate legal entity. Also that, the Subsidiary's place of business could not be termed as 'the place of business of the Appellant/1st Defendant'.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/1st Defendant cites the decision in Devidatt Ramniranjandas V. Shriram Narayandas, AIR 1932 Bombay 291, wherein it is held that 'Under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the obtaining of leave to sue,