Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2454
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 in Suit (L) No. 24922 of 2023 | Leave Petition (L) No. 24973 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 24961 of 2023 | Leave Petition (L) No. 25298 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 25293 of 2023 | Leave Petition (L) No. 25427 of 2023 in Suit (L) No. 25426 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, Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Mr. Aditya Mehta, Mr. Nimay Dave
The court established that jurisdiction for leave petitions is determined by where the cause of action arises, emphasizing communication and actions within the jurisdiction as key factors.
Headnote:(A) Jurisdiction - Leave to sue - Leave petitions filed by an airline company against their erstwhile pilots - Contention revolves around the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and whether part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and whether leave for filing suits should be granted - Assessment based on facts related to execution and performance of contracts. (Paras 1, 6, 9, 39)
(B) Cause of Action - Understanding cause of action based on geographical execution and performance of agreements - Key observations incorporate that both parties have conferred upon the courts of Mumbai, raising the question of jurisdiction. (Paras 7, 39)
(C) Contract Employment - Considerations regarding resignation from employment and its implications on jurisdiction - Importance of communication and place of receipt of resignation emails in understanding jurisdiction. (Paras 30, 38)
Facts of the case:
Leave petitions concern alleged breaches of employment agreements by pilots against the airline company, involving discussions on jurisdiction stemming from the execution and performance of contracts in Mumbai.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, supporting the grant of leave - leave was ultimately granted in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issues included the determination of exclusive jurisdiction related to contracts executed within Mumbai and whether the cause of action was adequately linked to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that parts of the cause of action linked to the jurisdiction can accrue from any acts done or communication made by parties within that jurisdiction, leading to the conclusion that this court has jurisdiction to grant leave.
Result: Leave granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. leave petitions filed by an airline against pilots. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court observations on exclusive jurisdiction criteria. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's decision on jurisdiction and leave. (Para 39) |
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 arose on every date thereafter as the Plaintiff has failed to report for duty despite being called on to do so. It is submitted that a continuing c
