https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97147 Receipt of a misleading notice within Calcutta, where the plaintiffs resided, was treated as part of the bundle of facts giving rise to the claim, so clause 12 jurisdiction was attracted and leave was properly granted. Revocation of that leave required more than a preferable alternative forum; the court needed proof that trial in the chosen forum would cause injustice or that the forum was selected mala fide. On the facts, no sufficient prejudice, unfairness, or bad faith was shown, so revocation was unsustainable and the plaintiffs could maintain the suit in the chosen forum. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:03:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97147 Receipt of a misleading notice within Calcutta, where the plaintiffs resided, was treated as part of the bundle of facts giving rise to the claim, so clause 12 jurisdiction was attracted and leave was properly granted. Revocation of that leave required more than a preferable alternative forum; the court needed proof that trial in the chosen forum would cause injustice or that the forum was selected mala fide. On the facts, no sufficient prejudice, unfairness, or bad faith was shown, so revocation was unsustainable and the plaintiffs could maintain the suit in the chosen forum. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 05 Mar 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97147