Madras High Court Restores Plaintiff's Leave, Emphasizes Jurisdictional Issues

The appeals were allowed, and the leave granted to the plaintiff was restored by the Madras High Court. The court emphasized addressing jurisdictional issues based on the averments in the plaint and highlighted the importance of considering the doctrine of forum conveniens/non conveniens. The suit was directed to be tried expeditiously under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
2. Jurisdiction of the Madras High Court.
3. Allegations of forum shopping by the plaintiff.
4. Application of the doctrine of forum conveniens/non conveniens.
5. Sufficiency of cause of action within the jurisdiction of the court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Revocation of Leave Granted Under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent
The appeals were filed against the common order dated 21.01.2020, where the Single Judge revoked the leave granted to the plaintiff to sue the defendants under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The court held that the leave should be revoked due to lack of jurisdiction, as the defendants were not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and the cause of action stated in the plaint was insignificant.

2. Jurisdiction of the Madras High Court
The plaintiff argued that the suit was maintainable within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court based on the sale of infringing products in Chennai by the 4th defendant. The court examined whether a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and whether the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to establish this.

3. Allegations of Forum Shopping by the Plaintiff
The defendants contended that the plaintiff had engaged in forum shopping by filing the suit in the Madras High Court after failing to secure an interim injunction in similar suits filed in Delhi and Mumbai. They argued that the plaintiff had manipulated the jurisdiction by placing trap orders through the 4th defendant, who was not an authorized dealer.

4. Application of the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens/Non Conveniens
The court discussed the application of the doctrine of forum conveniens/non conveniens, which aims to find the most suitable forum for the trial to meet the ends of justice. The court emphasized that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and entitled to choose the forum. The defendants must demonstrate that another forum is more appropriate and convenient for trying the suit.

5. Sufficiency of Cause of Action Within the Jurisdiction of the Court
The court held that the existence of a part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction is sufficient to maintain the suit. The evidence regarding the sale of infringing products within the jurisdiction should be assessed during the trial, not at the stage of granting or revoking leave. The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient averments in the plaint to establish a part of the cause of action within its jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the leave granted to the plaintiff was restored. The court directed that the suit be tried expeditiously under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The decision emphasized that the jurisdictional issues should be addressed based on the averments in the plaint and not on the evidence at the preliminary stage. The court also highlighted the importance of considering the doctrine of forum conveniens/non conveniens while granting or revoking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

---