2016 Supreme(Mad) 3991

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. Sundresh, J.
Mytrah Energy (India) Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Gamesa Renewable Private Limited and Ors. - Respondents
Application No. 6668 of 2015 in CS No. 697 of 2015
Decided On : 12-07-2016

Headnote:

Civil Laws – Suit for permanent injunction – Applicant as the Plaintiff seeks to file the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from associating himself with Defendant No. 2 including Defendant No. 3 and its other directors/officials in any manner whatever and in any capacity whatever and from acting on behalf of the Defendant No. 2 including Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and its other directors/officials till the final conclusion and disposal of the ongoing dispute arising out of the Multi-Annual Agreement Addendum A Amendment and Supplementary Agreement Purchase Orders/Project Agreements pursuant to the Multi-Annual Agreement between the Defendant No. 2 and the Plaintiff Company so as to affect the claim and rights and remedies/reliefs of the Plaintiff Company pursuant to his appointment as an employee in me Defendant No. 2 Company and for other reliefs. – Grievance of the applicant is that the 1st Respondent, who was employed as General Counsel- India of the Applicants Company has joined the 2nd Respondent after resigning the Plaintiffs Company and therefore so many confidential informations of the Applicants company available with the 1st Defendant are likely to be passed to the 2nd Defendant with whom the Applicant is having an arbitration proceedings. – Therefore, Applicant is seeking to file the present suit before this Court. – Held, Clause 8 can be invoked only by approaching the Court having territorial jurisdiction of Sholinganallur. – Reliance has been made on Clause 13, which speaks about the jurisdiction being vested with the Courts at Chennai. – Unfortunately, the plaintiff has misconstrued the said clause. – Though Sholinganallur can be termed to be a part of Chennai, it will not form part of the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. – Misconception has reigned because of the fact that the plaintiff has given its address as Sholinganallur, Chennai – Because of its wrong understanding, the leave was also granted. – In other words, the plaintiff proceeded on the footing that almost, all the causes of action have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court by bringing Sholinganallur within the purview of this Court. – When Sholinganallur does not come within the territorial jurisdiction, it is needless to state that the suit is not maintainable. – Letter of Appointment has to be read as a whole. – If that is done, then Clause 13 would only mean the jurisdictional Court other than this Court. – In other words, the Court, which has got jurisdiction over Sholinganallur, would alone have the jurisdiction. – That is the reason why, Clause 13 says the Courts at Chennai. – To repeat Clause 13 and to interpret it, it means that the Court having territorial jurisdiction over Sholinganallur alone. Even otherwise, law is quite settled that the parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction upon a Court. – It is not a case where two Courts have jurisdiction of which the parties have elected one. – If court see the order passed at the time of granting leave, then there will not be any confusion. – The plaintiff has proceeded on the footing that Sholinganallur comes within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. That is why, the averments that the agreement was entered into, the office of the plaintiff is situated within Chennai, the first defendant worked in Chennai and followed by the acceptance of resignation have been taken note of by this Court. – Therefore, there is no other way that is available for the plaintiff except to approach the Court, which has got territorial jurisdiction over Sholinganallur. – Second defendant is not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. – The payment is a mere ministerial or administrative act. – It is not a material fact, which requires to be proved leading to the granting of relief in favour of the plaintiff. – It is not even a relevant fact. Hence, the submission made in this regard is accordingly rejected. – Reliance made in this regard on the decisions rendered in Bhagwandas Metals Ltd., v. Raghavendra Agencies and L.S. Dwarakanath and Sri Durga Lodge Pvt. Ltd., V. Federal Lloyd Corporation Ltd., also cannot be accepted as they deal with different set of facts. – Application Dismissed.