Union of India & Ors. v. Cipla Ltd. & Ors.

, AIR 2016 SC 5025: the Supreme Court dealt

with the issue of forum shopping. The court held as follows:

A classic example of forum shopping is when a litigant approaches one Court for relief but
does not get the desired relief and then approaches another court for the same relief.

Rajiv Bhatia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.: MANU/SC/0552/1999 : (1999) 8 SCC 525.
The respondent-mother of a young child had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
Rajasthan High Court and apparently did not get the required relief from that court. She then
filed a petition in the Delhi High Court also for a writ of habeas corpus and obtained the
necessary relief. Notwithstanding this, this court did not interfere with the order passed by the
Delhi High Court for the reasons that this court ascertained the views of the child and found
that she did not want to even talk to her adoptive parents and therefore the custody of the
child granted by the Delhi High Court to the respondent-mother was not interfered with. The
decision of this court is on its own facts, even though it is classic case of forum shopping.
In Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao: MANU/SC/0711/2013 : (2013) 15 SCC 790
this court noted that jurisdiction in a court is not attracted by the operation or creation of
fortuitous circumstances. In that case, circumstances were created by one of the parties to the
dispute to confer jurisdiction on a particular High Court. This was frowned upon by this court
by observing that to allow the assumption of jurisdiction in created circumstances would only
result in encouraging forum shopping."

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that this Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain the application and he relied on a decision of "Kusum Ingots &
Alloys Ltd. v. UOI" reported in MANU/SC/0430/2004 : 2004 (6) SCC 254 where the
Supreme Court held that even if a small or insignificant part of cause of action accrues within
the jurisdiction of a High Court, the same cannot compel the High Court to decide the matter
on merits. In appropriate cases, the High Court may invoke doctrine of forum convenience
and return the matter to be adjudicated by Court of appropriate Jurisdiction.

Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. United Industrial Bank Ltd. and

Ors.MANU/SC/0375/1983 : [1983]3SCR962 , more particularly para 8 & 9, which reads as
under:-

"8. It is, therefore, necessary to unravel the underlying intendment of the provision contained
in Section 41(b). it must at once be conceded that Section 41 deals with perpetual injunction
and it may as well as be conceded that it has nothing to do with interim or temporary
injunction which as provided by Section 37 are dealt with by the Code of Civil Procedure. To
being with, it can be said without fear of contradiction that anyone having a right that is a
legally protected interest complains of its infringement and seeks relief through the Court
must have an unhindered, uninterrupted access to law Courts. The expression "Court" here is
used in its widest amplitude comprehending every Forum where relief can be obtained in
accordance with law. Access to justice must not be hampered even at the hands of judiciary.
Power to grant injunction vests in the Court unless the Legislature confers specifically such
power on some other Forum. Now access to Court in search of justice according to law is the
right of a person who complains of infringement of his legally protected interest and a fortiori
therefore, no other Court can by its action impede access to justice. This principle is
deducible from the Constitution which seeks to set up a society governed by rule of law. As a
corollary, it must yield to another principle that the superior Court can injunct a person by
restraining him from instituting or prosecuting a proceeding before a subordinate Court. Save
this specific carving out of the area where access to justice may be impeded by an injunction
the Court, the Legislature desired that he Courts ordinarily should not impede access to
justice through Court. This appears to us to be the equitable principle underlying Section
41(b). Accordingly, it must receive such interpretation as would advance the intendment, and
thwart the mischief it was enacted to suppress, and to keep the path of access to justice
through Court unobstructed.

Union of India Vs. Cipla Ltd. MANU/SC/1345/2016 : (2017) 5 SCC 262. The same
unequivocally holds, "A classic example of forum shopping is when a litigant approaches one
Court for relief but does not get the desired relief and then approaches another Court for the
same relief" and "Another form of forum shopping is taking advantage of a view held by a
particular High Court in contrast to a different view held by another High Court" and
"Another category of forum shopping is approaching different Courts for the same relief by
making a minor change in the prayer clause of the petition"; and, (b) Allied Blenders and
Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amit Dahanukar where the suit filed in Delhi, after the subsidiary of
the plaintiff had failed to get the interim relief in a suit earlier filed at Bombay, was held to be
by way of forum shopping and in abuse of the process of the Court.

Rana Steels v. Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/0476/2008 : (2008) 37 PTC 24 (Del);
there, though the counsel for the defendant stated that the defendant had no intention to sell
its products in Delhi, it was held that the plaint could not be ordered to be returned on the
basis of the said statement."
Chemithon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy and Ors.

The learned Single Judge then discusses the principle of forum conveniens. It is held that:

the High Court may exercise its discretion not to proceed with the petition on its appreciation
that the matter may be more conveniently carried to another High Court within whose
territory the better part of the cause of action has arisen.

....

The authorities do not say that the principle of forum conveniens would apply strictly. Kusum
Ingots speaks of such principle being kept in mind and being a relevant consideration in the
exercise of discretion to receive a petition by a High Court. The bogey of forum conveniens
is ordinarily raised by a defendant in a civil suit citing its convenience, whether by way of
costs or otherwise, to bring material and witness to effectively defend the suit.

18. On forum non conveniens the Learned Single Judge further observes as follows :

It must be borne in mind in the present matter that the alternative case of forum non
conveniens has been run, not by the respondent authority but by the private respondent.
Ordinarily the discretion on such count would be exercised on the assessment of the
inconvenience likely to be occasioned to the authorities who are the respondents to the action
and not necessarily on the private respondent's inconvenience. It is accidental in the present
case that the private respondent also has its place of business in Mumbai and would find the
Bombay High Court the more convenient forum for the writ petition. But an objector to a
patent application or a person seeking revocation of the grant may be situated in a place other
than where the respondent authorities in a writ petition would find it more convenient to
contest the action. In the exercise of the discretion in such case it would be the respondent
authorities' inconvenience that would be the guiding factor and not the private respondent's
for the objector in this case could easily have been from, say, the North-East to whom
Calcutta would have been a less inconvenient forum than Mumbai.

19. With utmost respect we are unable to agree with the observations made by the Learned
Single Judge. We do not discern any restraint placed on a private party raising the issue of
forum non conveniens. We also do not see any ratio of law which permits that discretion with
regard to directing parties to seek remedies in a High Court which will be convenient to all
the parties is to be exercised only at the instance of respondent authorities such as respondent
No. 1 in the present case. In the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd (supra) the Supreme
Court considered the issue of forum non conveniens while considering the issue with regard
to territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. It
is held that indisputably even if a small fraction of a cause of action accrues within the
jurisdiction of High Court, the High Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. However, the
same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court
to decide the matter on merits. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The Supreme Court
considered and approved the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of S. S. Jain
& Co. (supra) in the following words:

30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises
within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same, by itself may not be considered
to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In
appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking
the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney
MANU/WB/0075/1941 : AIR 1941 Cal 670, Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal(1945) 49 CWN 357
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. 1997 CWN 122, S.S. Jain
& Co. v. Union of India (1994) 1 CHN 445 and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India
MANU/DE/0014/1994 : AIR 1994 Del. 126.

Federal Express Corporation Vs. Fedex Securities Ltd. and Ors. - It is respectfully submitted
that none of the defendants carries on business within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court
nor has any cause of action or part thereof arisen within the jurisdiction. The plaintiff has
deliberately and willfully filed the suit before this Hon'ble Court in order to harass the
defendants and put them to great inconvenience and disadvantage. In fact, the plaintiff is
indulging in forum shopping, which cannot be allowed under any circumstances in law."
Horlicks Ltd. v. Heinz India (Pvt.) Ltd. MANU/DE/2721/2009 : (2009) 164 DLT 539 (DB)
which, after an incisive study of the evaluation of the forum non conveniens doctrine, with all
its inflexions, held, authoritatively, that the principle had no application to domestic suits.
Paras 78, 86, 88 and 90 of the decision merit reproduction, in extenso, thus:

"78. The aforesaid exposition thus shows that principles while exercising the discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot ipso facto be applied to a
civil proceeding governed by the said Code. Not only that, the principle of forum non
conveniens emerged as a principle of admiralty law applicable primarily to foreign forums. It
finds no place in a domestic forum in India. The plaintiff is always the dominus litis and so
long as the Court has jurisdiction to try a suit, a party cannot be non-suited. A suit has to be
governed by the provisions of the said Code. In this context, we may refer to the observations
made in Abdul Gafur v. State of Uttarakhand, MANU/SC/3415/2008 : (2008) 10 SCC 97,
where the Supreme Court held that since Section 9 of the said Code provides that a civil
Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting the suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred, the civil Courts have inherent jurisdiction
unless a part of that jurisdiction is carved out. Thus, the law confers on every person an
inherent right to bring a suit of civil nature of one's choice, at one's peril, howsoever frivolous
the claim may be, unless it is barred by a statute. It was further observed that a plaint can only
be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the said Code and similarly a plea of bar to
jurisdiction of a civil Court can be examined.

The learned Senior Counsel for respondents then contended that the respondents/plaintiffs are
the dominus litus and that they have the right to go to Court where they apprehend threat to
have their forum conveniens. As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum
Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0430/2004 : (2004) 6 SCC 254 in
appropriate cases, the High Court may refuse to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction by
invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court while
emphasising that the facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis of
which the writ petition can be granted, in Paragraph No. 30 the Supreme Court held as under:

30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises
within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered
to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In
appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking
the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney
MANU/WB/0075/1941 : AIR 1941 Cal 670, Madanlal Jalan v. MadanlalAIR 1949 Cal 495,
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. 1997 CWN 122, S.S. Jain
& Co. v. Union of India (1994) 1 CHN 445 and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India AIR
1994 Del 126.

https://www.barandbench.com/news/allegations-of-forum-shopping-in-trial-court-delhi-hc-
places-matter-before-the-chief-justice

https://www.barandbench.com/news/allegations-forum-shopping-three-delhi-judges-high-
court