The court granted leave to the plaintiff to institute a money recovery suit in Chennai following the rejection of a prior US suit on forum non-convenience grounds, noting the cause of action survives.
Leave granted; Application ordered as prayed for.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A.No.2449 of 2020 in C.S.SR.No.60868 of 2019
A.No.2449 of 2020 in C.S.SR.No.60868 of 2019
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J,
The plaintiff has laid its claim on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding, said to have been executed at Chennai on 20.08.2013. The suit is for recovery of money. The 3rd defendant is only a proforma party as against whom the proceedings were instituted before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai, and the matter being settled, the plaintiff has no
further claim as against the 3rd respondent / 3rd defendant.
2.The only cause of action is the Memorandum of Understanding, which is said to have been executed at Chennai.
3.The learned counsel stated that the plaintiff had instituted a suit in
the Court at Arizona in United States of America and the same was rejected on the ground of forum non-convenience on appearance entered by the
defendant therein.
1/2
A.No.2449 of 2020 in C.S.SR.No.60868 of 2019
smv
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN.,J
4.The stand of the defendant was that the Court in India will have
the jurisdiction and specific reference was made that the Memorandum of Understanding had been executed at Chennai, and that the Courts at United States of America would not have any jurisdiction. That stand of the defendant was considered and the plaintiff was non suited. However, the plaintiff has now filed the suit in Chennai, since the cause of action, according to the plaintiff still survives.
5.Taking into consideration this limited aspect, leave is granted and the Application is ordered as prayed for.
6.Registry may number the suit, if it is otherwise in order.
16.10.2020
smv
A.No.2449 of 2020 in C.S.SR.No.60868 of 2019
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should grant leave to file a suit instituted as a pro forma before the National Company Law Tribunal after a prior US suit was rejected on forum non-convenience grounds.
Whether the cause of action survives in Chennai for the plaintiff to file a suit there.
The Defendant
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
