- (1.) This is an application at the instance of the defendant No.3 for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
(2.) The plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendants in the suit no relief is claimed against the defendant No.3. In Paragraph 49 of the Plaint, the plaintiff says that the plaintiff No.1 is entitled to USD 95,836,701.50 equivalent to Rs.5,77,41,61,265.38 against the defendant Nos.2 and 3 for guarantee commission and quality claim. However, the plaintiff No.1 reserved all its rights in this regard presumably because of the existence of a jurisdictional clause in the agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and the applicant dated 4th November, 2007. The plaintiff and the applicant (formerly known as Gujarat FCGL) have entered into a Purchase Agreement dated 4th November, 2007 by and under which the defendant No.3 agreed to sell and load the product at the loading port for delivery to the plaintiff No.1. The applicant says that the agreement was signed by the defendant No.3 at Australia and the contract was concluded at Australia. The applicant says that the agreement entered into between the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.3 specifically provides that the said contract shall be governed by the New South Wales Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia and the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No.3 shall submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of New South Wales and Australia to settle their disputes.
(3.) The applicant further says that the plaintiff alleged that the Jindal group, mainly Jindal Steel & Power (Mauritius) Ltd. and Jindal Steel & Power (Australia) Pty Ltd. acquired the major stake in defendant No.3/applicant, which are separate legal entities and are not arrayed as parties. Thereafter, it is alleged that they took over the management and control of defendant No.3/applicant and started interfering in the management of defendant No.3/applicant, which was earlier a subsidiary of plaintiff No.1. It also alleged that after taking over the management of defendant No.3/applicant, the defendant No.3/applicant stopped payment of the freight charges to the shipping company and thus, prevented the supply of coal to the plaintiff No.1 under the Purchase Agreement and hence, the present suit. This dispute cannot be decided by this forum as this Hon'ble Court by reason of Clause 21 of the Agreement does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and determine the suit.;