Ruma Pal, J. - (1.) This Is an application by the defendant No. 8 challenging the maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiff against the 14 defendants on three grounds which broadly stated are ;- (i) That this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. In the alternative it is claimed that the balance of convenience warrants trial of the suit in Bombay rather than in Calcutta. (ii) That this Court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the claim of plaintiff against the applicant or the defendants Nos. 2, 4, 9,12, 13 and 14. The plaintiff has claimed separate monetary decrees against each of the defendants. The claims against the named defendants were below Rs. 10 lakhs which is the lower limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. (iii) That the plaint was bad for multifariousness. There was misjoinder of parties and causes of actions.
(2.) The objections being in the nature of demurrers must be decided on the basis of allegations made in the plaint. The case in the plaint is is brief as follows:- The plaintiff is an investment company and has its registered office within the jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant No. 1 Tushar G. Shah and the defendant No. 7 Akshay P. Sangbavi were known to the Directors of the plaintiff. They approached the plaintiff at its office in Calcutta for financing the defendants Nos. 1 & 7 and their family members and friends for purchase of the promoter's quota of shares la a company by the name of Credence Sound and Vision Ltd. Negotiations were held between the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1 & 7. the defendants agreed to borrow different amounts for purchasing the shares. the agreement was entered into in Calcutta. Subsequent thereto 14 separate but materially identical agreements were executed between each of the defendants and the plaintiff The plaintiff paid different amounts to each of the defendants. The payments were made in Bombay. The defendants pledged shares of Credence Sound and Vision Limited with the plaintiff in Calcutta. The defendants paid a total amount of Rs. 25 lakhs to the plaintiff at Bombay. The parties agreed that the amounts would be credited proportionately in the account of the defendants. After such adjustment different amounts were outstanding by each of the defendants to the plaintiffs. The defendants defaulted in repayment of the loan. The defendants Nos. 1 & 7 admitted their liabilities and wrote letters of admission on behalf of the other defendants. The letters were written to the plaintiff in Calcutta. Subsequent agreements were entered into extending the time for repayment and raising the rate of interest in consideration for such extension. The defendants did not pay within the extended time. The plaintiff has claimed the right to sell the pledged shares. In Paragraph 14 of the plaint the plaintiff has stated as follows:- "The plaintiff states that all the said loans were given for one object viz. to enable the defendants to purchase the promoters quota of shares in the public issue scheduled to be made in December 1994 and all transactions referred to above were negotiated and carried through by the defendants Nos. 1 & 7 for and on behalf of the defendants. By reason of the aforesaid, the cause of action of the plaintiff arose out of the same and/or series of transactions and the plaintiff is entitled to institute the present suit in its present form. Further if separate suits were filed the same questions of law and facts would arise and the same would amount/lead to multiplicity of suits/proceedings."
(3.) The plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 2.11 crores and paid Court fees on that amount. As part of the cause of action as pleaded arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and part arose outside the jurisdiction of the Court, the plaintiff prayed for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and has as asked for separate monetary decrees against each of the defendants. In addition the plaintiff has claimed e decree for sale of pledged shares and the right to appropriate the sale proceeds "in accordance with the respective sale values that may be obtained by such sales any proportion of the shares which stands in the name of different defendants".;