Receipt of notice within jurisdiction suffices to establish cause of action for suit.

ORDER

This application has been filed to grant leave to sue the respondents.

2. The contention of the respondents/defendants is that none of the statements made by the applicant was sent to any one residing within the Chennai jurisdiction of this Court.

3. It is the case of the respondents/defendants that notice were sent only to the authorities in Bangalore and Delhi and none of the notice were addressed to the respondents / defendants. The respondents / defendants would further submit that none of the notices were addressed to the respondents/defendants. She would further submit that the respondents/defendants had made averments in the affidavit, as if the respondents/defendants was also in receipt of such notices and its end customer Bosch. She would further submit that the notices were sent to Bosch and not to the respondents/defendants. Therefore, there is no cause of action that arises within the jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the present suit. Hence, she seeks for rejection of the application.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff would submit that notices were addressed by the applicant/plaintiff to the Registrar of Companies, Chennai and also to the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate affairs, Tamil Nadu, Chennai and the Chief Labour Commissioner, Chennai. That apart, the applicant/plaintiff was called upon by the Registrar of Companies to submit his explanation. He would further submit that the defendants had sent such notices to the visual media channels and the same had been published in the visual media channels and also in the social media and the defamatory allegations were also viewed at Chennai. Hence, this Court has part of cause of action.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The plaintiff in his plaint had pleaded that the defamatory statements had been made to various authorities including the authorities in Chennai, from whom he had been called for to offer explanation. He had also made specific allegations that such defamatory statements were published in the visual media and social media, whereby its reputation has been damaged. Even though, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would submit that she has not been the cause for such publication. This Court is of the view that such claim made by the respondents/defendants would only be adjudicated at the time of trial and not in an application to revoke.

7. It is to be seen that an averment has been specifically made that the notice sent to the defendant had been received by the Registrar of Companies from whom the plaintiff was sought for an explanation.

8. The learned single Judge of this Court in the case of S.Abdul Subhan V.

A.R.Mahaboob Jani reported in (2007) 3 MLJ 132 had held that receipt of such notice even by the authority within the jurisdiction of this Court would give cause of action for the plaintiff to prosecute the suit before this Court. It cannot be disputed that even an receipt of notice would give rise to cause of action before the particular Court. The plaintiff being a dominus litis can choose the forum of convenience. When a miniscal part of cause of action arise within the jurisdiction of this Court.

9. In such view of the matter, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for leave to sue the defendants.

10. This application is ordered as prayed for.

28.02.2025 Note : Registry to number the suit if it is otherwise in order.

A NO. 5965 of 2024 To

1. Ekennis Software Service LimitedAND 8 OTHERS Bengaluru CS SR NO. 150636 of 2024

1. Ekennis Software Service Limited tsh