RACHIT MALHOTRA Vs. ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The counsel for the applicant/defendant and the counsel for the nonapplicant/plaintiff have been heard.

(2.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit for specific performance of the contract/letter dated 1st December, 2008 for transfer of 4178 equity shares of the applicant/defendant in favour of the plaintiff in reference to the Employees Stock Option (ESOP) Scheme, 2008 issued by the applicant/defendant and in the alternative for recovery of compensation of Rs.4,38,69,000/-.

(3.) The counsel for the applicant/defendant has urged three grounds for rejection of the plaint. Firstly, it is contended that the plaintiff has invoked the territorial jurisdiction of this Court by pleading in para 34 of the plaint that the registered office of the applicant/defendant company is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is argued that though it is not disputed that the registered office of the plaintiff is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, but the plaintiff was employed with the applicant/defendant in the corporate office of the applicant/defendant at Noida, Uttar Pradesh and the entire cause of action, if any accrued to the plaintiff against the applicant/defendant at Noida and this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit merely for the reason of the registered office of the applicant/defendant being situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance in this regard is placed on Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. Prasad Trading Company, 1991 4 SCC 270 reiterated in New Moga Transport Co. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, 2004 4 SCC 677 to contend that if the cause of action has accrued at the place of subordinate office and not at the place of principal office of the applicant/defendant, the jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) of the Court where the subordinate office is situated, only can be invoked.