Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2453
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S. M. Modak, J
SNV Aviation Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Capt. Gareema Kumar – Respondent
Leave Petition (L) No. 24935 of 2023 | Suit (L) No. 24922 of 2023 | Interim Application (L) No. 24933 of 2023 | Leave Petition (L) No. 24973 of 2023 | Suit (L) No. 24961 of 2023 | Interim Application (L) No. 24969 of 2023 | Leave Petition (L) No. 25052 of 2023 | Suit (L) No. 25045 of 2023 | Interim Application (L) No. 25049 of 2023 | Leave Petition (L) No. 25298 of 2023 | Suit (L) No. 25293 of 2023 | Interim Application (L) No. 25300 of 2023 | Leave Petition (L) No. 25427 of 2023 | Suit (L) No. 25426 of 2023 | Interim Application (L) No. 25428 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Ms. Rishika Harish, Mr. Ashish Bhan, Mr. Aayush Mitruka, Ms. Lisa Mishra, Ms. Sonal Singh, Ms. Preksha Gupta
For the Respondents: Mr. Darius Khambata, Mr. Srinivas Bobde, Ms. Shreenandini Mukhopadhyaya, Mr. Rohan Dakshini, Ms. Shweta Jaydev, Ms. Janaki Garde, Mr. Chandrajit Das, Ms. Feroza Bharucha, Mr. Shamant Satiya, Ms. Arya Gadagkar, Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Mr. Aditya Mehta, Mr. Amit Mishra, Mr. Azeem Samuel, Mr. Nimay Dave
Jurisdiction clauses in employment agreements are valid if the cause of action arises within the designated jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Letters Patent - Clause XII - Exclusive jurisdiction - Multiple leave petitions filed by an airline against pilots on resignation disputes - Determination of whether leave should be granted based on jurisdiction considerations - Court evaluates the place of execution and cause of action regarding employment agreements. (Paras 6-39)
(B) Cause of action - Evaluation - Court needs only to assess if claims made in the plaint establish a continuing cause of action within jurisdiction - The court does not need to determine all facts at this interim stage. (Paras 4, 10, 18)
Facts of the case:
Multiple leave petitions raised jurisdiction issues regarding employment agreements between the airline and pilots concerning resignations; the airline argues part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, while defendants contest this claim.
Findings of Court:
The court finds that due to the jurisdiction clauses in the agreements and actions taken in Mumbai, part of the cause of action is established, thereby favoring granting leave.
Issues: Determination of exclusive jurisdiction related to resignation claims and implications for each party based on geographical elements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court rules that jurisdiction clauses must be upheld if part of the cause of action occurs within the prescribed jurisdiction. Such arrangements must not contradict the fundamental jurisdictional rules.
Result: Leave granted in favor of the plaintiff.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. multiple suits challenging jurisdiction based on causes of action. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's considerations hinge on jurisdiction and exclusive nature. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. arguments emphasize jurisdiction clauses and place of action. (Para 10 , 39) |
| 4. determination of jurisdiction rests on cause of action context. (Para 18 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. final ruling upholds the jurisdiction clause. (Para 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
1. All these six Leave Petitions are filed in six separate Suits. These suits are filed by Airline company against their erstwhile Pilots/Officers. Normally, the issue of grant of leave is an issue in between the Petitioner- Plaintiff and the Court. Whereas in these Leave Petitions, the Defendants have appeared in pursuance of private notice given on the Interim Applications filed in the suits.
2. All of them have assisted the Court while deciding the issue of grant of leave. Even though Leave Petition is filed in Suit (Stamp) No.25426 of 2023, the Defendant therein resides in Mumbai, and as such the leave is not required. Leave Petition (L) No.25427 of 2023 is disposed of.
3. According to the Petitioner in all these Leave Petitions, this Court will be having exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the suit. They have also pleaded that part of cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of this Court and that’s why leave is sought. Whereas, according to the Respondent in all these Leave Petitions, this Court will not be having jurisdiction and as such leave cannot be granted. There are affidavits in reply filed by the Defendants. They have opposed the Leave Petitions. There are also affidavit in rejoinder filed.
4. As said above, grant or refusal of leave is an exparte affair but in these petitions, the respondents have appeared and they are opposing grant of leave. This Court is aware that while deciding the issue, this Court is not supposed to conduct an inquiry in detail. But on the basis of submissions and replies, this Court will certainly consider whether on the basis of averments in the plaint and petition leave can be granted.
5. On this background, I have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Dwarkadas and learned Senior Advocate Mr.Khambata and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Andiyarujina in all these Petitions. The lead arguments for the Respondents is advanced by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Khambata and it was adopted by rest of learned Advocates.
CLAUSE XII OF LETTERS PATENT
6. It is true that clause XII of Letters Patent is in two parts. The first part, deals with situation wherein leave is not required. It is applicable :--
a. when land or property is situate within the jurisdiction of this Court.
b. It is applicable when cause of action has arisen wholly within jurisdiction of this Court and c. when Defendant resides, carries on business or work for gain within the jurisdiction of this Court.
In these contingencies, leave is not required. Leave is required only when a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. When we apply the parameters laid down in clause XII of the Letters Patent to the facts of these petitions, it is true that the dispute does not relate to immovable property or land. Except one Defendant, none of the Defendants are residing or carrying on business or works for gain at Mumbai. So the issue is narrowed down, whether the entire cause of action has arisen in Mumbai or whether part of cause of action has arisen in Mumbai.
7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Khambata laid emphasis on variance in the case pleaded in the plaint on one hand and case pleaded in the Leave Petition, on the other hand. For better understanding the relevant paragraphs of the plaint are reproduced below :- “71. It is submitted that the cause of action for filing the instant suit first arose on 30.08.2023 i.e. the date on which the Defendant abruptly tendered resignation of her employment with the Plaintiff without complying with the terms of the Agreements. The cause of action further aro
