TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (9) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e defendants, however, have said that the entire cause of action has arisen only at Cochin and not in Madras. Learned single Judge, Srinivasan, in his impugned judgment has said; In my opinion, it is not necessary to consider whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the City of Madras. I propose to decide the matter on the assumption that part of the cause of action has arisen within the City of Madras. 2. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent which speaks about the original jurisdiction as to suits, runs as follows: And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras, in exercise of its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try, and determine suits of ever....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e plea that most part of the cause of action had arisen within the city of Madras, only on the ground that the defendant had pleaded otherwise and alleged that no part of the cause of action had arisen in Madras but had arisen at Cochin. In K. Murugesan v. Seethalakshmi reported in (1992)1 L. W. 277 we had the occasion to examine the scope of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to find out when this Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain a suit under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. In our Judgment in the said case we have noticed. The chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay besides this Court, are having the original jurisdiction as found in Clause 12 of our Letters Patent. They have to find before a suit is entertained on Origi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... territory. Although the case in K. Murugesan v. Seethalakshmi reported in (1992)1 L.W. 277 was one in which the question had not directly arisen whether in deciding to grant leave, the pleadings of the defendant would be taken into consideration or not, we took notice of a celebrated judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Bengal Agricultural and Industrial Corporation v. Corporation of Calcutta AIR1960Cal123 , to quote in some detail the law on the subject including the passage: On a correct construction of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, not all suits in which there are more than one defendants, not all of them being within jurisdiction, are liable to be dismissed as against all including those who reside or carry on business....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The learned single Judge is, however, right in saying that in all cases where a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of one court and the other part within the jurisdiction of some other court, the relevant question will be the balance of convenience, but then has said : "In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit the defendant has stated that the entire evidence whether documentary or witnesses, has to be produced at Madras for conducting the trial which would be highly impossible apart from being expensive. The defendants will be subjected to acute hardship and loss on the other hand, the plaintiff will not be subjected to any hardship as the plaintiff is having a branch at Mattancherry, Cochin and their ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which may be taken into consideration in dealing with applications under Clause 12, and we are certainly not prepared to hold that this question should be excluded from consideration. This view has been reiterated in several judgments of the courts having original jurisdiction including the judgments of the Calcutta High Court in Par-asaram v. Chitandas A.I.R. 1952 Cat. 82 and Bihar State Agro Industrial Development Corporation v. Ram ChandKhosla AIR1982Cal537 . But then in considering the balance of convenience, the court is required to see the plaint and the facts stated therein. The court has to necessarily see the entire bundle of facts and then to determine the question of convenience. Stating, though with respect to grant of interl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alf of the plaintiff to see whether facts show that most of the transactions took place within the jurisdiction of this Court or a small part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, for, if most of the transactions were done within the jurisdiction of this Court obviously the defendants found it convenient to transact their business for all purposes within the jurisdiction of this Court but only to defeat the grant of leave on the Original Side of this Court, the plea of convenience is raised. We would also have examined ourselves as to whether keeping in view the nature of the transactions between the parties from which transactions the present suit has arisen, it would be inconvenient to the defendants to defen....