Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 26005
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. 24969 of 2023 | Suit (L) No. 24961 of 2023 | Leave Petition (L) No. 24973 of 2023 | Interim Application (L) No. 25049 of 2023 | Suit (L) No. 25045 of 2023 | Leave Petition (L) No. 25052 of 2023 | Suit (L) No. 25045 of 2023 | Leave Petition (L) No. 25231 of 2023 | Suit (L) No. 25219 of 2023 | Leave Petition (L) No. 25234 of 2023 | Suit (L) No. 25219 of 2023 | Leave Petition (L) No. 25298 of 2023 | Suit (L) No. 25293 of 2023 | Interim Application (L) No. 25300 of 2023 | Suit (L) No. 25293 of 2023 | Leave Petition (L) No. 25427 of 2023 | Suit (L) No. 25426 of 2023 | Interim Application (L) No. 25428 of 2023 | 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, 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.Azeem Samuel, Mr.Aditya Mehta, Mr.Amit Mishra, Mr.Nazish Alam, Mitakshara Goyal, Mr.Shivam Singhania, Mr.Shiva Gaur,}
Jurisdiction in employment contract disputes can stem from where the communication of acts occurred, confirming parts of cause arising in the agreed jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 - Clause XII - Jurisdiction and Leave Petitions - Leave petitions filed by an Airline Company against its erstwhile pilots regarding grant of leave involving jurisdictional questions - The court provides criteria for exclusive jurisdiction based on employment agreements executed in Mumbai and cause of action therein - The court confirmed that part of the cause of action having arisen in Mumbai justifies jurisdiction under clauses agreed upon - Precedents discussed regarding determination of cause of action relative to execution and communication of employment agreements and resignations. (Paras 1, 6, 7, 39)
(B) Jurisdiction - Ambit of Clause XII of Letters Patent confirmed to encompass circumstances such as place of execution, performance, communications relating to the agreements - Evaluation of pleadings affirming both exclusive jurisdiction and cause of action being established partly in Mumbai. (Paras 6-36)
Facts of the case:
Multiple leave petitions were filed by the plaintiff against various defendants, former pilots, concerning jurisdictional criteria and employment contract disputes arising from resignation notices and conditions.
Findings of Court:
The petitions were allowed based on the determination that parts of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, confirming the court's jurisdiction.
Issues: Main issues revolved around the determination of jurisdiction based on the execution and acceptance of contractual obligations tied to Mumbai.
Ratio Decidendi: Court establishes that jurisdiction can be confirmed through considerations of where the communication of acceptances and actions took place, with part of the cause of action validly occurring in Mumbai based on pleadings.
Result: Leave petitions allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. multiple leave petitions addressing jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. assessment of jurisdiction based on execution of agreements. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 39) |
| 3. the importance of where resignation communication is received. (Para 13 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. legal parameters for cause of action and contractual undertakings. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
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.
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 caus
