Abuse of process through forum shopping and suppression of foreign adverse order led to dismissal of the later suit.

A second suit based on the same core dispute was held to be an abuse of process where the plaintiffs had already pursued substantially identical reliefs in a foreign court, failed there, and then omitted disclosure of the adverse appellate order in the Indian plaint. The court treated the non-disclosure as suppression of a material fact and found that the later affidavit did not create a fresh cause of action because the grievance had already arisen from the original refusal to transfer the claimed rights. Parallel proceedings on the same controversy after choosing the foreign forum first were treated as re-litigation and forum shopping. The suit was held not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit was liable to be dismissed as an abuse of process on the grounds of forum shopping, suppression of material facts, and institution of parallel proceedings after an adverse foreign court order.

Analysis: The plaintiffs had earlier pursued substantially identical reliefs before the foreign court, where interim relief had initially been granted but was later vacated by the appellate court. The plaint in the present suit did not transparently disclose the adverse foreign appellate decision, and the court held that this amounted to suppression of a material fact. The court further held that the affidavit relied upon by the plaintiffs did not create a fresh cause of action, because the grievance had already arisen from the original refusal to transfer the claimed 7% rights and had been pursued in the foreign proceedings. In these circumstances, filing a second suit in India on the same core dispute, after failing to obtain relief in the foreign proceedings, was treated as re-litigation and forum shopping. The court also held that the principle underlying the explanation to Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could not be used by the same plaintiffs to maintain parallel proceedings in India after choosing the foreign forum first.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable and was dismissed as an abuse of the process of court.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot maintain a second suit on the same core dispute after invoking and pursuing substantially identical reliefs in a foreign court, particularly where the later suit suppresses a material adverse order and seeks to re-agitate the same controversy in another forum.

---