Video hearings weaken forum non conveniens objections, Madras High Court says in refusing to dismiss suit against Oman-based defendant

The plaintiff sued for a declaration that a settlement deed, release deed and related documents executed in Dubai were non-est, void and unenforceable.

He alleged that he had been coerced into executing them and that they were subsequently acted upon in relation to Indian companies, including by removing him as a director and appointing the second applicant as a director.

The defendants applied to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and to revoke leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, arguing that no part of the cause of action arose within the Court’s jurisdiction and that the second and third applicants were improperly joined to create jurisdiction.

They also argued that Dubai was the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff opposed the applications, relying on the applicants’ alleged participation in the events and on subsequent actions concerning the Indian companies.

Whether the plaint disclosed a basis for the Madras High Court’s jurisdiction, or whether it should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or leave revoked under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

Whether the second and third applicants’ alleged participation and residence within the Court’s jurisdiction could be considered at this stage, or whether their joinder was an abuse of process.

Whether the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of forum conveniens or forum non conveniens.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides for rejection of a plaint on specified grounds; for an application under that Rule, the Court examines the plaint averments and plaint documents.

The Court applied the same plaint-focused approach to the application to revoke leave, and held that disputed allegations concerning the defendants’ participation and the propriety of their joinder could not be resolved at that preliminary stage.

Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was invoked in the application to revoke leave; the Court concluded that the pleaded facts—including subsequent acts concerning the Indian companies and the alleged participation of defendants residing within the jurisdiction—were sufficient for the suit to proceed.

Although the applicants relied on authorities concerning forum conveniens, the Court did not determine their application on those authorities; it reasoned that video-conferencing and the Court’s rules for recording evidence from witnesses outside its jurisdiction reduced the force of convenience-based objections.

On the material available at the preliminary stage, the Court noted that the disputed documents had allegedly been acted upon by elevating the second applicant to a director of a group company, and that this fact had not been specifically denied.

The plaint also contained allegations concerning the participation of the second and third applicants in the execution process; whether those allegations were true, and whether the applicants were properly joined, required adjudication at trial rather than determination under Order VII Rule 11 or on the leave application.

The Court therefore found that the pleaded events and the applicants’ stated residence within its jurisdiction supplied a sufficient basis to retain the suit at this stage.

It declined to accept the forum conveniens objection, observing that remote proceedings and rules for recording evidence from outside the jurisdiction meant that witness location did not require the Court to relinquish jurisdiction.

It also extended the interim orders in O.A. No.171 of 2026 until the next hearing of that application.

No costs were awarded.