The jurisdiction for defamation suits is determined by where the alleged defamatory impact occurs, asserting the importance of substantiated claims regarding the distribution and consequences of defamatory statements.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner-defendant No.1 is at the doors of this Court calling in question rejection of an application filed under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC filed seeking return of the plaint to a Court having jurisdiction.

2. Heard Sri Pankaj Bhagath, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Manu P. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondents 1 and 2.

3. Facts in brief, germane, as follows:

3.1 Before embarking upon consideration of the issue in the lis, I deem it appropriate to notice the protagonists in the lis. The petitioner is the defendant No.1, a partner and authorized signatory of respondent No.3/Company – Flash Cloud Consulting – defendant No.2, a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale and distribution of software. The 1^st respondent is the plaintiff- Array Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (‘Array India’ for short) which is the Indian entity of Array Networks Inc. (‘Array, USA’ for short). Respondent No.2 - the plaintiff No.2 is an employee and Director of Array India, the plaintiff No.1.

3.2. On 03-09-2019, Array, USA enters into a distribution agreement with 3^rd respondent/Flash Cloud Consulting for distribution and reselling of software products manufactured by Array, USA. The petitioner/defendant No.1 is a signatory to the said agreement. Close to 4 years thereafter, Array, USA discontinued their distributorship agreement with the petitioner, since the petitioner’s office – defendant No.2 was closed and sealed due to an investigation at the hands of the GST for alleged non-compliances under the CGST Act.

3.3. On 09-11-2023, respondents 1 and 2 received an electronic mail from their parent entity Array, USA that the defendant No.1/petitioner was sending false and defamatory e- mails to Array, USA and other third parties like KPMG, Deloitte and other Government Authorities in other jurisdiction. One day after the of the receipt of the email on 10-11-2023, the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2 file a suit in O.S.No.7357 of 2023 seeking injunction and declaration against the petitioner. Several reliefs were claimed in the said suit. The petitioner, after receipt of notice, files his written statement denying all the allegations and the concerned Court allows the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 granting an injunction against the petitioner/the defendant No.1.

3.4. When things stood thus, the petitioner files an application in I.A.No.3 for return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC on the score, the Courts in Bengaluru have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and it must be returned for want of jurisdiction. The concerned Court, in terms of the order dated 30- 10-2024 rejects the application. The rejection of the application has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that Section 20 of the CPC does not deal with residence or office of the plaintiff, but only with that of the defendant; no reasons are assigned while depicting cause of action in the plaint that the cause of action has occurred in Bengaluru; Section 19 does not have any application in the said suit; Section 19 deals with compensation, while the present suit relates to injunction and declaration. Clause (a) and (b) of Section 20 of the CPC refers to the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business; clause (c) of Section 20 refers to a Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. There is no pleading by the plaintiff in the plaint that