On 25th October, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Asha Menon, held that the broad principle while dealing with applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, particularly, Rule 11(d) CPC as being barred by law, is that the court would not consider any evidence or enter into a disputed question of fact or law. Only the averments in the plaint are germane, the pleas taken by the defendants would be wholly irrelevant while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Facts of the case:
The suit has been filed for damages and permanent and mandatory injunction, inter alia seeking to restrain Defendants Nos.1 and 2 from making defamatory statements and spreading malicious falsehoods, committing unlawful and tortious interference with the business of the plaintiffs and indulging in breach of privacy of the plaintiffs and its employees. The plaintiff No.1, Convergytics Solution Pvt. Ltd. is a duly incorporated company acting through it’s CEO and Managing Director. The plaintiff No.2, Sanjeev Mishra is the co-founder and Managing Director of the Company and leads the Analytical Solution Department at the company. Randhir Hebbar, Defendant No.1 has been described as an ex-employee of the company. Defendant No.2 is stated to be a share-holder and former Director of the company.
Contention of the plaintiff:
The following contention has been submitted by Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff:
- It was submitted that the defendant No.1 was indulging in activities that were against the interests of the plaintiff No.1 and therefore, his services were terminated and soon thereafter, he had started a vicious campaign against the plaintiffs by reaching out to employees and clients that was adversely impacting the business activities and reputation of the plaintiff No.1.
- It was contended that the actions of the defendants No.1 & 2 had resulted in employees leaving the firm and important clients such as Dell, Tata Motors, Titan, Tanishq etc. becoming so disturbed that they had started seeking clarifications from them in order to continue business with them.
- It was further submitted that the two employees, who had filed their declarations, were also located in Delhi on account of Covid-19 and were working from home and as such, the cause of action has arisen in Delhi and this Court had complete jurisdiction to try the case.
In this background, the plaintiff prayed that a decree of injunction be issued in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from indulging in such activities, particularly, through social media and damages of Rs.5 crores have also been claimed among other reliefs.
Contention of the defendant:
The following contention has been submitted by Mr. Ujwal Jha, learned counsel for the defendants:
- It was contended by means of the application under Order VII rule 11 CPC that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try this case.
- It was argued that under Section 19 of the CPC, the suit could have been filed only where the defendants resided i.e. Bengaluru, and hence, the court has no jurisdiction at all inasmuch as the plaintiffs and defendants are located in Bengaluru and no cause of action has arisen in Delhi.
- It was also submitted that there are multiple litigations pending before various judicial forums in Bengaluru. Therefore, the present suit was filed in Delhi only when the Bengaluru suit did not yield the desired results and such forum shopping had to be dealt with sternly.
- It was submitted that the present suit is also barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC and was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Observation and judgement of the court:
The following observation has been made by the hon'ble court:
- It is trite that while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint alone are to be considered.
- While dealing with applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, particularly, Rule 11(d) CPC as being barred by law, was that the court would not consider any evidence or enter into a disputed question of fact or law.
- Whether Shubhika Goel and Naveen Sharma were residing in Delhi or not and whether the emails of the defendants were sent only to those at Bengaluru would be questions of fact, to be determined on the basis of evidence led during trial. Hence, it cannot be a relevant factor for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Base on the above, the court concluded that there is no ground to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the application is dismissed. It further held that an injunction would be issued, if the plaintiffs establish a prima facie case in their favour and establish that irreparable loss and damages would be caused to them.
Read Judgment;
source ; /www.latestlaws.com/
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments