Forum non conveniens can apply despite territorial jurisdiction where another competent forum is more appropriate and avoids conflicting suits.

Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 identifies territorial venues for suit, but it does not impose an absolute duty on every competent court to entertain proceedings. The doctrine of forum non conveniens may still operate through Section 151 in rare and exceptional cases where another competent forum is clearly more appropriate and justice requires refusal to proceed. On the facts discussed, the suits were connected with pending Bombay proceedings, raised overlapping issues on competing advertisements and comparative claims, and risked forum shopping, duplication, and conflicting findings; the proceedings were therefore treated as suitable for return and rejection in favour of the Bombay forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens is excluded by Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when the court otherwise has territorial jurisdiction; (ii) whether the plaints in the present suits ought to be returned and rejected on the facts, having regard to the inter-related pending proceedings and the risk of conflicting decisions.

Issue (i): Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens is excluded by Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when the court otherwise has territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 20 identifies the courts where a suit may be instituted, but it does not create an absolute compulsion that every court having territorial jurisdiction must entertain the matter. The inherent power under Section 151 of the Code may be exercised where there is no express or implied prohibition, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens operates in that space. The principle is discretionary, to be used rarely and with caution, where another competent forum is clearly more appropriate and where the interests of justice warrant refusal to entertain the proceedings. It is therefore not alien to Section 20 and does not contradict it.

Conclusion: The doctrine of forum non conveniens is not barred by Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and may be applied in an appropriate case.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaints in the present suits ought to be returned and rejected on the facts, having regard to the inter-related pending proceedings and the risk of conflicting decisions.

Analysis: The advertisements in dispute were found to be inter-connected with the pending proceedings in the Bombay High Court. The pleadings themselves disclosed the link between the competing advertisements, the claims concerning pricing and nutritional superiority, and the possibility that any decision in Delhi would necessarily touch the same controversy. In these circumstances, entertaining the suits in Delhi would encourage forum shopping, risk conflicting findings, and multiply litigation. Since both parties were already litigating in Bombay and the matter could be adjudicated there as a single controversy, the balance of justice favored relegating the plaintiffs to that forum. The case was treated as an exceptional instance warranting refusal to exercise jurisdiction despite the availability of territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The plaints were rightly returned and rejected in favour of the defendant.

Final Conclusion: The decision recognizes that a court with territorial jurisdiction may still decline to entertain a suit in exceptional circumstances where another competent forum is the more appropriate venue and the proceedings would otherwise invite abuse, duplication, and conflicting outcomes.

Ratio Decidendi: Territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not oust the court's discretionary power, in an appropriate and exceptional case, to refuse to entertain a suit on the ground of forum non conveniens to prevent abuse of process and conflicting adjudications.

---