Sheikha Hind Suhail Al Mukhaini Bahwan vs Durgaprasad Shanmugam

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 20.07.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
A Nos.1556 & 1557 of 2026
in
C.S(Comm.Div.)No.65 of 2026
1. Sheikha Hind Suhail Al Mukhaini Bahwan,
House No. 2878, Way No. 2333, Muscat,
Sultanate of Oman
Email ID – [email protected]
Rep.by the POA K.Murali
2. Gangadharan Venugopal
Chief Financial Officer, BCT Group
Having address at Old No.25/2,
Guruvappa Chetty Street Chintadripet,
Anna Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, 600
002and Flat No. 4B, First Floor, 199, Avvai
Shanmugam Salai, Opp to Senghadhal Park,
Near DAV Girls Hr. Sec. School, Gopalapuram,
Chennai - 600 086
Email ID –
[email protected]
Rep.by the POA K.Murali.
3. Ranganathan Saravanan
Director of Finance & CPO,
Having address at Apartment No 911, Hatat
Complex,Way No 5134, Wadi Adai Muscat,
Sultanate of Oman
Email ID – [email protected]
Rep.by the POA K.Murali.
..Applicants in both
applications
Vs.
Page 1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
Durgaprasad Shanmugam
S/o Shanmugam Navalpore Paramasivam,
Aged about 66 years, Residing at New.No.y- 81
(Old No Y- 11), 5th Main Road, Anna Nagar,
Chennai 600 040.
Rep by its POA Mr Padmanabhan Menon
Nadiyedath, S/o Balakrishna Menon Chitoor
Pulangara, Residing at Flat No FL5001 Sobha
HRC Pristine Amrutha Halli Main Road,
Jakkur.Opp K.V.Jairam Rd, Yellahanka, P.O.
Yelahanka District, Bengaluru,
Karnataka-560 064
..Respondent in both
applications
Prayer in A No. 1556 of 2026
Judge’s Summons under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules
read with Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) & (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
praying to reject the Plaint filed by the Plaintiff in C.S.(Comm). No. 65 of 2026
on the file of this Hon’ble Court.
Prayer in A No. 1557 of 2026
Judge’s Summons under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules
read with Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, Madras High Court, praying to revoke
the leave granted by the order dated 19.02.2026 in Application no. 877 of 2026
in C.S (Comm.Div.) No.65 of 2026.
For Applicant(s): Mr.Sathish Parasaran
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.Vinod Kumar
st
(For 1 Applicant)
(in both applications)
Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.Vinod Kumar
nd rd
(For 2 and 3 Applicant)
(in both applications)
Page 2 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.S.Raman
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.Nitesh Jain
For Mr.P.Giridharan
(For Sole Respondent
in A.No.1556/2026)
Mr.A.K.Sriram
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.Nitesh Jain
For Mr.P.Giridharan
(For Sole Respondent
in A.No.1557/2026)
COMMON ORDER
The application in A.No.1556 of 2026 has been filed to reject the Plaint
filed by the Plaintiff in C.S.(Comm). No. 65 of 2026 on the file of this Hon’ble
Court.
2. The application in A.No.1557 of 2026 has been filed to revoke the
leave granted by the order dated 19.02.2026 in Application no. 877 of 2026 in
C.S (Comm.Div.) No.65 of 2026.
3. Heard both sides.
4. In a suit filed for declaration of a settlement deed and release deed that
had been executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant to be non-est,
void and unenforceable, which is the primary relief, the applications for
Page 3 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
rejection of the plaint as well as for revoking the leave granted had been taken
up by the defendants.
5. Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the first applicant, at the outset, would submit that the respondent/plaintiff had,
without any cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court,
had approached this Court seeking for a declaration that the settlement
agreement and release agreement that had been executed by the respondent at
Dubai, is not valid and binding on him, apart from other ancillary reliefs. In that
regard, he would submit that no cause of action had arisen before this Court.
6. He would further submit that the respondent had cleverly impleading
nd rd
2 and 3 applicant, who were not parties either to the settlement agreement or
the release deed and is attempting to rope in the first applicant, who is neither a
nd rd
citizen of India nor a resident of India. He would submit that both the 2 and 3
applicants are only witnesses to the aforesaid documents and adding them as
necessary parties is only with an intention to abuse the process of Court to
maintain the suit against the first applicant.
7. He would contend that the various documents that had been relied upon
by the respondent were all executed in Dubai and none of the causes of action
relating to the suit had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. He would
Page 4 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
further submit that the averments of the respondent to bring the suit within the
jurisdiction of this Court, namely, the availability of certain corporate records,
statutory filings and property documents and the location of immovable
properties mentioned in the settlement agreement, cannot, at any stretch of
imagination, support the claim for cause of action of the suit.
8. He would submit that the companies that are shown to be within the
jurisdiction of this Court are not actually within the jurisdiction of this Court
and are geographically outside the jurisdiction of this Court. He would further
submit that registration of the company with an authority within the jurisdiction
of this Court and the filings done before it cannot also clothe this Court with
jurisdiction. He would submit that the suit had not been filed as Suit for
immovable property within the jurisdiction of this Court, but only a suit,
seeking for a declaration of the documents that have been executed outside the
jurisdiction of this Court to be non-binding on the respondents.
9. He would further submit that when the respondent, being a party to a
document, cannot seek a relief of declaration, but would have to seek a prayer
for cancellation of the document. According to him, a declaration could only be
sought by a third party to the document and not by a party to the document. He
would further submit that, in respect of part of the cause of action arising out of
the settlement agreement and the release deed, the respondent had approached
Page 5 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
the Court in U.S. In that regard, he would further submit that the respondent is
attempting to approach various Courts with the malice to harass the applicant.
10. He would also strongly contend that this Court would also not be a
Court of forum conveniens for the parties, even assuming cause of action based
nd rd
upon the residence of the 2 and 3 applicants. In that regard, he would also
seek application of forum non conveniens . He would submit that in the plaint as
well as in the documents supporting the plaint, namely, the exchange of notices,
various other witnesses, who are primarily citizens of Foreign Countries and
living outside the jurisdiction of this Court have also to be examined.
11. He would further submit that there can be no dispute that the present
suit is an action in personam and in that regard, he would submit that it is well
settled that only if a foreign defendant either resides within the jurisdiction of
this Court or voluntarily appears or had conceded to the jurisdiction of this
Court, the Court cannot have jurisdiction over such foreign defendants. In that
regard, he had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of World Tanker Vs. SNP Shipping Service , reported in ( 1998) 5 SCC
310 . He would submit that the appearance of the first applicant before this Court
is without prejudice to her rights to contest and claim jurisdiction on the ground
of she being a foreign defendant.
Page 6 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
12. He had also relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex
Court to classify the suit as an action in personam.
(i) Deccan Paper Mills Co Ltd., Vs. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors ,
reported in (2021) 4 SCC 786 ;
(ii) Modi Entertainment Network and another Vs. W.S.G Cricket
Pte.Ltd., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 341 .
13. He would contend that a cause of action is a bundle of facts and facts
would be relevant to vest jurisdiction with the Court. A reading of the plaint,
according to him, would suggest that the cause of action for the suit is the
execution of the settlement deed and the release deed and other documents on
alleged acts of coercion and duress by the applicants. He would submit that
even admission of fact of such events it had occurred at a place outside the
jurisdiction of this Court, in a foreign territory. He would further submit that the
cause of action for filing the suit is something which preceded filing and not the
actions which may follow. In that regard, he had relied upon the followingn
judgments:
(i) A.B.C.Laminart Pvt. Ltd., Vs. A.P.Agencies reported in (1989) 2 SCC
163 ;
(ii) National Westminster Bank Ltd., Vs. Devraj Nensee and Co and Ors ,
reported in ( 1997) 88 Com Cas 625 ;
Page 7 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
(iii) Premier Distilleries Vs. Sushi Distilleries , reported in 2001 (3) CTC
652.
nd rd
14. He would submit that the 2 and 3 applicants were mere witnesses
and had neither been necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Any relief as
against them could only be subject to the respondents succeeding in their
attempt as against the settlement agreement and the release deed. In this regard,
he would also relied upon the judgment in the case of Kaka Hajee Ishaque Vs.
Kaka Md.Saddiq, reported in (1969) 82 LW 622 .
15. Taking this Court to the notices that had been issued by the
respondent/plaintiff, he would submit that there had been no allegation as
against applicants 2 and 3 for being a party to the suit. He would also take this
Court to the proceedings that were initiated by the respondents in the U.S Court
to claim that defendants 2 and 3 were not impleaded as parties and there were
no allegations of coercion and duress on their part in the said plea.
16. Even in a complaint filed by the respondent at Dubai, the complaint
was only against the first applicant and not applicants 2 and 3. In that regard, he
would submit that they had been made parties to the suit only to clothe this
Court with jurisdiction, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court.
In that regard, he had also relied upon the following judgments:
Page 8 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
(i) Rohit Shekhar Vs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari reported in MANU D E
0534 of 1996;
(ii) Secor Twenty-one Owners Welfare Association Vs. Air Force Naval
Housing Board , reported in MANU/DE/0534/1996 and
(iii) Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay and Ors, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524.
17. Relying upon the following judgments,
(i) Modi Entertainment Network and another Vs. W.S.G Cricket Pte.
Ltd., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 341 ,
(ii) Spiliada Maritime Corpn. Vs. Cansulex Ltd., reported in (1987) AC
460 ,
(iii) Modi Entertainment Network and Another Vs. W.S.G Cricket Pte.
Ltd., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 341 ,
(iv) Duro Flex Pvt., Ltd., Vs. Duroflex Sittings System, reported in 2014
(6) CTC 577 ,
(v) Alcon Electronics (P) Ltd., Vs. Celem S.A. of France, reported in
(2017) 2 SCC 253 and
(vi) Ahmed Abdullah Al Ghurair Vs. Star Health and Allied Insurance
Company Ltd., reported in (2019) 13 SCC 259 ,
he would contend that for maintaining a suit within the jurisdiction of this
Court, the principle of forum conveniens , is also a factor which has to be
Page 9 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
considered. In that regard, he would submit that the present suit filed based
upon non-exclusive jurisdiction of the UAE Courts would only mean the
jurisdiction of such Court had not been ousted.
18. It is also, according to him that the perusal of the plaint would also
indicate that the documents, which are sought to be declared as null and void
and not binding on the respondent have all been executed at Dubai and drawing
this Court’s attention to the notices exchanged between the parties and also the
claim made before the US Court that there are witnesses, who are the residents
of Dubai and Oman, against whom allegations have been made and that they are
necessary parties to be examined. In that regard, he would submit that the Court
at Dubai alone would be the more appropriate forum and in that regard, even
assuming that this Court has jurisdiction, this Court should shun away the
respondent to approach the convenient forum.
19. He would further submit that the situs of shares alone cannot confer
jurisdiction on this Court. Hence, he prays this Court to revoke leave as well as
reject the plaint.
20. Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
second and third applicants, supporting the arguments of the learned Senior
counsel appearing for the first applicant, drawing attention to the pleadings in
Page 10 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
the plaint, would submit that the second and third applicants are only witnesses
to the documents, which were sought to be declared as null and void and not
binding on the respondent.
21. Referring to the various documents that had been filed in support of
the plaint, he would submit that there can be no allegations against the second
and third applicants of coercion in executing the documents. He had also relied
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of V.Selladurai Vs. N.Nethaji and
another , reported in 2006 4 LW 343 and also the judgment of the Delhi High
Court to contend that they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit
and have been added as parties to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this
Court and had abused the process in obtaining the leave to prosecute the plaint,
which otherwise would fall wholly outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
22. He would further submit that when there are more than one defendant
and when any of them reside beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, such Court’s
jurisdiction would depend on the nature of cause of action and not simply based
upon the cause of action that some of the defendants reside within the
jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, he prays this Court to grant the reliefs sought
for by the applicant.
23. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
Page 11 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
in A.No.1556 of 2026, would submit that the respondent is a co-founder, partner
and shareholder in a group of companies operating across 50 Countries. The
first applicant is a key shareholder and the person exercising the dominant
control over the affairs of the said group and also the Director in the Indian
companies, which is at the apex of the group company structure. It is the
respondent's leadership that earned the recognition of the group companies
worldwide.
24. In and around June 2021, the respondent was diagnosed with multiple
myeloma, an aggressive and life-threatening form of blood cancer. He would
submit that the respondent had struck a deal with a third party company for
infusion of its capital, which would further fuel the growth of the company and
in that regard, the respondent was called upon through the representative of the
first applicant for a meeting at Dubai on his transit to United States of America
for treatment, since the first applicant was a resident of Oman. During the said
meeting, the respondent was confronted with the false complaint and was
coerced to execute the settlement agreement, release deed and various other
letters of resignation and share transfer forms. He would also submit that, in
spite of which, criminal complaints were filed against the respondent and his
son and the Court in Dubai had also acquitted them on the sole ground that the
Courts in Dubai do not have jurisdiction to hear the case. He would submit that
the Indian companies of the group are all registered at Chennai and based upon
Page 12 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
the settlement agreement and the release deed and other documents executed,
the respondent had been removed as a Director in the Indian companies, which
also forms part of the cause of action that had arisen within the jurisdiction of
this Court before the filing of the suit.
25. He would further submit that applicants 2 and 3 are permanent
residents of Chennai and also allege that the coercion agreement and other
documents are jointly prepared by applicants 1 to 3. That apart, he would
submit that under the coercion agreement, the shares that had been held by the
petitioner and his family in Tekion Corporation are also sought to be transferred
within the jurisdiction of this Court.
26. The second applicant had now been made as a Director in the
company as a reward for his participation in the acts of coercion and duress,
forcing the respondent to execute the alleged documents. This itself would show
that, pursuant to the execution of the alleged documents, the same had been
acted upon within the jurisdiction of this Court and in that regard, he would
submit that, at the outset that the Court has jurisdiction to deal with the case, as
respondents 2 and 3 reside within the jurisdiction of this Court.
27. The Removal of the respondent and clothing the second applicant as a
Director of the group of companies would itself form part of the cause of action,
Page 13 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
which arises within the jurisdiction of this Court for maintaining the suit before
this Court. He would further submit that the first applicant is also a shareholder
in the companies registered and a Director in the Indian companies and
therefore, she is also bound by the Indian laws with regard to the same and
when it relates to the entitlement of the respondent to continue to be a Director
of the company, dehors of the agreement, which had come into being and due to
the acts of coercion and duress at the behest of the applicant, the applicant
cannot be heard to claim that this Court do not have jurisdiction.
28. Taking this Court through the various averments in the plaint, he
would submit that there are clear averments with regard to the role played by
the second and third applicants in the challenged documents coming into being
and that apart, there are specific prayers against them and in that regard, he
would submit that they both are also proper and necessary parties to the suit.
When that being so, their situs of permanent residence within the jurisdiction of
this Court would also entitle the respondent to maintain the suit before this
Court.
29. With regard to the arguments made by the applicants on forum
conveniens , the learned Senior Counsel would submit that when none of the
parties are either residents at Dubai and also none of the companies are having
business at Dubai, the Courts in Dubai cannot have jurisdiction to decide the
Page 14 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
suit, much less cannot be a forum conveniens to the parties.
30. He would submit that the Courts in Dubai would be a forum non
conveniens to the parties. Filing of the suit in U.S relates to an employment in
the concerned Country, for which Courts in U.S will only have the jurisdiction
to try. Filing of the said suit in U.S Court cannot oust the jurisdiction of this
Court in trying a comprehensive suit, which also includes cause of action that
has arisen before this Court and is to arise before this Court.
31. He would submit that throwing the plaint away on the claims made by
the applicants alone, would only lead to multiplicity of proceedings, as
implementation of the agreement or its consequence thereof could only be the
subject matter of challenge before this Court.
32. He would submit that, based upon the alleged coercive agreements,
the applicants have acted upon by implementing the resignation letter, which
has been obtained by such coercion and duress and appointing the second
applicant as a Director in the group companies in India. Hence, he prays this
Court to dismiss the application.
33. Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
in A.No.1557 of 2026, supporting the claim made by Mr.P.S.Raman, learned
Page 15 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
Senior Counsel, would submit that the claim of the applicant that the suit for
declaration would not be maintainable, as the respondent was a party to the
document, is wholly misconceived. He would further submit that the nature of
the document is only executory and no concluded contract had taken place.
Only in continuation of the executory documents, further action could be
initiated and such actions would have to take place within the jurisdiction of this
Court.
34. He would also draw the attention of this Court with regard to the
removal of the respondent as a Director and appointment of the second
applicant as a Director in the Indian company. According to him, the subsequent
conduct based upon the executory document would also form part of a cause of
action for the respondent to maintain the suit within the jurisdiction of this
Court, as the resignation from directorship, appointment of the second applicant
as director and transfer of shares, which has situs in Chennai and the location of
the immovable properties in Chennai, are all indicators for the maintainability
of the suit at Chennai. In that regard, he had relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ahmed Abdullah Al Ghurair Vs. Star
Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd., reported in ( 2019) 13 SCC 259.
35. As regards the claim of forum conveniens at Dubai, as claimed by the
applicants, he would submit that none of the parties to the suit have residence in
Page 16 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
Dubai, nor any of the companies of the group has roots in Dubai, except
execution of the alleged document and the coercive threat in Dubai. He would
submit that the first applicant has a place of business at Chennai, being a
Director of the companies and the second and third applicants are all permanent
residents at Chennai.
36. He would further submit that a witness to a document can also be a
party to the suit, particularly when fraud is alleged even as against them in
execution of the documents. In that regard, he would take this Court to the
various averments in the plaint, wherein specific averments have been made
against the applicants 2 and 3 in the suit. Hence, he prays for dismissal.
37. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, in support
of their submissions, had relied upon various judgments.
38. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior
Counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
39. The primordial contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the applicants is that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the
jurisdiction of this Court and that there has been an abuse of the process of
Court by adding parties, who are not necessary or proper for disposal of the lis,
Page 17 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
the respondent had abused the process in obtaining leave to maintain the suit
within the jurisdiction of this Court.
40. It is trite law that, for revoking the leave or for rejecting the plaint, the
averments made in the plaint and the plaint documents alone are to be gone into
by the Court. The second and third applicants had been represented through a
Power of Attorney by name one K.Murali. In support of his authorization, the
Power of Attorney executed by them had been placed on record.
41. As regards the second applicant, namely, Gangadharan Venugopal,
the Power of Attorney that had been executed and adjudicated before the
jurisdictional Sub-Registrar had been placed on record. A perusal of the same
would indicate that he is currently residing at Muscat and in that regard, he had
nominated his agent. The copy of the passport that had been appended to the
adjudicated Power of Attorney would indicate that the second applicant is a
permanent resident at Chennai, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
42. The Power of Attorney had been executed by the third applicant
before the Notary Public at Chennai on 16.03.2026. The Power of Attorney had
been executed, showing that he had been a resident at Muscat and had
temporarily come down to Chennai, wherein he had executed the Power of
Attorney solely for the purpose of defending the present suit. On the other hand,
Page 18 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
during the course of the proceedings, the copy of the passport belonging to the
third applicant had also been placed on record, indicating that he is also a
permanent resident within the jurisdiction of this Court.
43. As regards the cause of action for maintaining the suit and the various
contentions raised based upon the disputed facts, it is to be noted that the
respondent, who had been a Director in the group companies, admittedly,
pursuant to the alleged settlement deed, the release deed and other documents
executed by him at Dubai, had been acted upon by the applicants, whereby the
second applicant had now been elevated to the position of Director in one of the
group companies after the disputed documents. This had not been specifically
denied by him.
44. In the preceding findings, this Court had come to the view that not
only part of the cause of action had arisen before this Court, but also the
applicants 2 and 3, who are the second and third defendants, are permanent
residents within the jurisdiction of this Court, for the Court having jurisdiction
to try the suit. That apart, various averments as regards to the participation of
applicants 2 & 3 in the process of execution of the documents challenged in the
suit had also been made. The said averments could only be adjudicated during
the trial in the suit. The issue of misjoinder of parties as raised by the applicants
on the strength of the averments made therein cannot be gone into at the stage
Page 19 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
of deciding an Order VII Rule 11 application for rejection of plaint or revoking
the leave that had been granted by this Court.
45. As an alternative, the learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of
the applicants have also pleaded forum conveniens for rejection of the plaint. It
is to be noted that the claim for forum conveniens had been made based upon
the claims of the residences of the applicants and as to the availability of the
witnesses, which would be more convenient to him.
46. Various judgments relied upon by the respective learned Senior
Counsels on the issue of forum conveniens and forum non conveniens have all
been decided at a stage when the Courts had to deal with cases, which required
appearance of parties in person, including the witnesses. The said position has
now been changed due to the advent of the deadly pandemic Covid-19.
47. The Courts are conducting proceedings through Video-Conferencing
including recording of evidence of the respective witnesses from every corner
of this world. This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact of the Rules
framed by this Court in recording of evidence of witnesses, who reside outside
the jurisdiction of this Court. In such march of procedure that had been devised
by the Courts in view of the advent of the COVID pandemic, this Court is of the
view that the principles of forum conveniens and forum non-conveniens which
Page 20 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
came into being through judicial pronouncements making the Courts to oust its
jurisdiction would have to give way for effective implementation of the Rules
that have been framed by the Courts by which this Court need not oust its
natural jurisdiction. A further reason would be that the principles laid so cannot
be permitted to under a statutory rule to be rendered otiose. In such view of the
matter, the arguments advanced by the respective Senior Counsels on the
aforesaid principles are not being dealt with.
48. In fine, this Court do not find any merits in the applications and
accordingly, both the applications stand dismissed. No costs.
49. Since this Court had restricted the interim orders already granted in
O.A.No.171 of 2026 in C.S(Comm.Div.)No.65 of 2026 till the pronouncement
of the order, the same shall be extended till the date of the next hearing of the
said application.
16-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
kak
Page 21 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

A Nos. 1556 & 1557 of 2026
K.KUMARESH BABU J.
kak
A Nos.1556 & 1557 of 2026
in
C.S(Comm.Div.)No.65 of 2026
16-10-2026
Page 22 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )