- (1.) This is an application at the instance of the defendant no.1 for furnishing securities by the plaintiff who is a foreign national. The basis of the application is the proviso of Order 25 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. S.N. Mitra, learned senior counsel has relied upon two decisions of our High Court in 'Revlon Inc. and Others vs. Kemco Chemicals and Others' reported at AIR1987 Calcutta 285 and in 'The Hearst Corporation vs. Dalal Street Communications Ltd.' reported at CAL. LT. 1995(2) HC 346 and submits that the said proviso is held to be mandatory in respect of a foreign national if he does not possess any sufficient immovable property within India. In that case the said foreign national as plaintiff would be required to furnish sufficient security as a condition precedent for proceeding with the suit.
(2.) On 27th November, 2015 I declined to pass any interim order in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that Clause 7.4(V) of the second agreement adequately protects the interest of the plaintiff as compensation in terms of money would be an adequate remedy available to the plaintiff in the event the plaintiff is able to establish breach. The defendant no.1 was also directed to furnish accounts to the Court on the returnable date.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant submits that in the affidavit the plaintiff shall disclose its assets, if any, in terms of the requirement of the proviso to Order 25 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;