As per case facts, the Plaintiffs (Mega International Commercial Bank) filed a suit seeking to prevent defendants from making payments under Letters of Credit (LCs) issued by Defendant No.2 (Grand ... Dignity Industrial Co. Ltd.) abroad. Defendant No.2 sought to revoke the leave to sue granted by the High Court, arguing that no significant cause of action arose in Chennai as the LCs are independent of the underlying contract, and parallel proceedings were ongoing in Taiwan where an injunction was already secured. Plaintiffs contended that Chennai was the intended port of discharge, establishing partial jurisdiction, and Taiwanese courts had declined jurisdiction over their dispute. The question arose whether the Chennai High Court had jurisdiction over the dispute concerning LCs issued abroad, given the circumstances and the principle of forum non-conveniens. Finally, the High Court held that the mere mention of Chennai as the original destination for goods, which were diverted, was an insignificant fact and insufficient to establish cause of action for a suit concerning LCs. Given the LCs' independence from the underlying contract and the ongoing proceedings abroad, the leave to sue was revoked to prevent parallel litigation and potential conflicting judgments.