JUDGMENT :

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

1. Application No. 5144 of 2019 has been filed by the First Defendant under Order 14, Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 12 of the Letters Patent seeking to revoke the Order, dated 13.12.2018 in A. No. 9787 of 2018 granting Leave to institute the Suit as against the Applicant/First Defendant.

2. A. No. 5145 of 2019 had been filed by the Eighth Defendant under Order 14, Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 12 of the Letters Patent seeking to revoke the Order, dated 13.12.2018 in A. No. 9787 of 2018 granting Leave to institute the Suit against the Applicant/Eighth Defendant.

3. For the sake of convenience the Applicants would be referred as First & Eighth Defendants. The Respondents are the Plaintiffs and they would be referred as Plaintiffs.

4. In the Affidavit filed in support of A. No. 5144 of 2019, it is the contention of K. Arun Kumar, the Authorised Representative of the First Defendant, Ravindranath GE Medical Associates Private Limited had stated that the First Defendant is a Company having Registered Office in Perumbakkam, and therefore, is outside Chennai, the territorial limits of this Court. It had been stated that the Suit is not one in which this Court has been inherently conferred with the jurisdiction and it had been stated that this Court does not have the discretion to entertain the issues raised in the Suit. It had also been stated that neither the Plaintiffs nor any of the Defendants reside or carry on business in Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Court and no cause of action had arisen as on the date of filing the Suit, within the jurisdiction of this Court. It had been stated that the Plaintiffs had filed the Suit and seeking reliefs on the sole basis that certain Cheques that formed part of the consideration of the transaction in dispute were deposited within a Bank that fell within the jurisdiction of this Court. It was stated that this would not satisfy the requirements as enumerated under Class 12 of the Letters Patent. It was stated that even if it is to be assumed that the pleadings in the Plaint can be construed as giving rise to part of cause of action within Chennai, no specific, or material cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the Suit against any of the Defendants since they are all situated beyond the Territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It had also been stated that miniscule or irrelevant parts of a. cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be the basis for granting Leave to institute the Suit. It had been further stated that the Plaintiffs, with wrongful purpose to coerce the First. Defendant to meet their unlawful demands had filed the Application seeking Leave to institute before this Court, with knowledge that this Court does not have, jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Suit or over the issues involved. It had been stated that similar proceedings have already been filed before the NCLT, Hyderabad and similar issues have been raised by the Plaintiffs in the aforesaid proceedings. It had been stated that there exists a more appropriate Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the lis between the parties. It had been also stated that the object of the Plaintiffs in instituting the Suit was to harass the First Defendant rather than protecting their rights. It had also been stated that the Plaintiffs have already filed ah impleading A. No. 385 of 2018, dated 11.9.2018 in a Company Petition filed under Sections 241 to 243 of the Companies Act, 2013 and pending before NCLT, Hyderabad Bench, wherein it had been alleged that the amounts invested by the Plaintiffs in the Second Defendant had been diverted to the First Defendant and that the Third Defendant had fraudulently utilised the same to represent his ownership in the First & Eighth Defendants to enter into an Investment Agreement, dated 28.8.2015. It had been stated that the Impleading Application is pending. It had been state