R. Mahadevan, J.

This appeal is filed against the order passed by this Court on 01.06.2015 in A.No.6373 of 2014 in C.S.(D)No.34580 of 2014, granting leave to the first respondent/plaintiff to sue the defendants who are living and carrying on business outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:

(i) The first respondent herein established a sole-proprietorship firm by name 'Lead Hospitality' to provide technical solutions to the services industry, including soft skills and strategic skill sets and also to provide consultancy and training services in India. The appellant company is a federally incorporated company in Canada to provide premium online training to build employable skills and increase productivity and the respondents 2 and 3 are its Directors. During the year 2011, the second respondent approached the first respondent herein through a common reference of an NGO, to present a customer service training through online training program which he wanted to promote in India for the hospitality industry. After various email correspondences between the first respondent and the respondents 2 and 3, the latter assured that a 'Preferred Placement Partner' agreement with a placement firm in Mumbai with All India reach would be entered during August 2011 and that the agreement would give the first respondent the similar option which would provide resume building tips and work to place the learners and on successful placement, the placement firm with an intimation to the licensee, would remit 25% of the placement fee directly. However, the said agreement was not entered into between the parties. After great deliberations and discussions, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between the first respondent's company and the appellant-company on 14.12.2012 at Chennai and the third respondent signed on behalf of the appellant. On the same day, a Licence Agreement was also entered between them at Chennai. The objective and plan of the first respondent was to purely 'sell the ready-made online training programme to the market and earn the due profit or commission'.

(ii) After entering into memorandum of understanding and license agreement, the first respondent took various efforts to promote the product at all levels, i.e., from NGOs in India to retail outlet companies and also school drop-outs, graduates and other individuals and in spite of the same, none of them had shown any interest or satisfaction about the product and the same was informed to the respondents 2 and 3. Thereafter, the first respondent came to know about RAI (Retail Association of India), which is a core retail members club. The RAI was organising a two day event at Mumbai showcasing retail services and offered a platform to make a presentation and have stall there, where hundreds of their members would be present.

(iii) Hence, after obtaining license, they also participated in the exhibition conducted in Mumbai. Since the retailers were keen that the product be approved by RAI, in order to sell the product in the retail market, the approval of RAI was inevitable. Further, the first respondent took special efforts to speed up the decision process and convinced the RAI management to approve the on-line program well in time. Finally, RAI gave the payment option in three instalments ie., Rs.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 lakhs. As the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 were delaying their decision, the first respondent herein, having no other alternative, paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to RAI in good faith on behalf of the appellant-company so that they could use the approved logo in their materials. The above payment to RAI was made with consent and knowledge of the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 and on a specific understanding that the same would be reimbursed or adjusted towards purchase of licenses.

(iv) The first respondent, even though had not heard anything on meeting potential clients and pushing R