1 A No. 3547 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

27.11.2025

Pronounced on

05.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

A No. 3547 of 2024

in

C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 31 OF 2024

M/s Mega International Commercial Bank

Co Ltd

Offshore Banking Branch Represented by its

Branch Manager

No.100 Jilin Road Zhongshan District

Taipei City Taiwan

Applicant(s)

Vs

1. Mr Chandrakanth

Proprietor, M/s.Adishwar Impex,

1

st

Floor, No.126/1,

K.S.Garden, 4

th

Cross, Lalbagh Road, Sudhama

Nagar, Bangalore Urban, Karnataka 560 027.

2. M/s.Grand Dignity Industrial Co. Ltd., rep. By

its Power of Attorney Agent Mr.Chandrakanth,

10F, No.356, Fuxing N.Rd,

Taipei City, Taiwan.

3. M/s.Trade Direct Europe Ltd.,

rep. by its Director,

One Canada Square, 37th Floor,

Canary Wharf, London,

E14 5AA, United Kingdom.

1/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2 A No. 3547 of 2024

4. M/s.Deutsche Bank AG(Frankfurt),

rep. by its Branch Manager,

Taunusanlage 12, Frankfurt AM Main,

Germany.

5. M/s.MAERSK Line India Pvt. Ltd.,

rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

3rd Floor, Prestige Palladium Bayan,

Greams Road, Thousand Lights West,

Chennai 600 006, Tamil Nadu, India.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

To pass an order to revoke the leave to sue granted to the plaintiffs by order

dated 14.2.2024 in A.No.854 of 2024.

For Applicant:Nishanth S Kadur for

M/S.P.Raj Kumar Jhabakh

For RR1 and 2:Ms.Dipthi Munoth.A. for

M/s.Priyanka R.

For R4: Mr.Raghavendra Ross for

M/s.Dua Associates

ORDER

The present Application has been filed by the second defendant in the suit

seeking to revoke the leave to sue granted to the plaintiffs by order dated

14.2.2024 in A.No.854 of 2024.

2. Brief facts of the case of the Applicant/Defendant No.2 are as under : -

2.1. The Plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to

prevent Defendants 1 to 3 from making payments under three Letters of Credit

2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3 A No. 3547 of 2024

viz., Letter of Credit No. F3OBAH2O139/1AQ dated 8

th

December 2023

("LC-1"), Letter of Credit No. F3OBAH2O141/1AQ dated 12

th

December 2023

("LC-2") and Letter of credit No. F4OBAH20006/1AQ dated 5

th

January 2024

("LC-3"). These Letters of Credit were issued by the Defendant No.2 in Taiwan

at the request of Plaintiff No.2. Defendant No.2 has already filed its Written

Statement in the Suit.

2.2. The Plaintiff No.2 had asked Defendant No.2 to issue the Letters of

Credit in favour of Defendant No.1 and they are governed by UCP 600 rules.

Defendant No.3 is the nominated bank. On 18.01.2024, Defendant No.3

presented the entire documents to Defendant No.2 for encashment of LC-1 &

LC-2 on 22.01.2024. After examining the documents, Defendant No.2 found

several discrepancies viz., mismatched GST numbers, incorrect details in the

Bill of Lading, improper place of issuance, issues in the pre-shipment inspection

certificates and inconsistent dates. The UCP 600 Rules requires the banks to

examine documents and therefore, Defendant No.2 issued a formal

communication of the same. None of these communications happened in India,

as the parties are located in Taiwan, Germany and the United Kingdom.

2.3. While so, on 06.02.2024, Plaintiff No.2 wrote to Defendant No.2 to

stop payments under the Letters of Credit and initiated legal proceedings in the

Taiwan District Court. Plaintiff No.2 had sought a provisional injunction to

3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4 A No. 3547 of 2024

restrain payments until a final decision is reached by Taiwan District Court. On

7.03.2024, Plaintiff No.2 filed a Civil Complaint in Taiwan, to nullify its

contractual relationship with Defendant No.1, to declare that no debt exists

under the Letters of Credit and to affirm that there is no payment obligation in

respect of the Letters of Credit in issue. These proceedings are still pending.

Inspite of the proceedings in the Taiwan court, the Plaintiffs had filed the

present suit before this Court on 15.02.2024, with similar prayer. On 8.04.2024,

the Taiwan District Court granted provisional injunction to the Plaintiff No.2,

restraining the Defendant No.2 from making any payments, subject to providing

security by the Plaintiff No.2.

2.4. Except the Defendant No.4, against whom no relief is sought, none of

the parties reside or function in Tamil Nadu. The Plaintiffs rely on the fact that

Chennai was the intended port of discharge for delivery of goods in order to

claim that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial

jurisdiction of this Court. According to the Applicant, the said fact is irrelevant

because the suit concerns only the Letters of Credit, not the underlying

contract. Plaintiff No.1 is not even a party to the Letters of Credit.

2.5. The fraud is said to have arisen from presentation of documents in

Germany and subsequent receipt of documents in Taiwan and not in Chennai.

4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5 A No. 3547 of 2024

The only act mentioned in the Plaint is a letter written by Plaintiff No.1 to the

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai seeking permission to scan the vessel

carrying the cargo. Therefore, no relevant cause of action has arisen within this

Court’s jurisdiction.

2.6. India is not the appropriate forum for this dispute. Nothing in the

Letters of Credit indicates that Indian law applies. Moreover, Plaintiff No.2 has

already chosen Taiwan as the forum by filing a case. Continuing the suit in India

would cause serious hardship to Defendant No.2 and paves way for parallel

proceedings in two countries over the same dispute. This would lead to

unnecessary expense and a risk of conflicting judgments.

2.7. The Plaintiffs will not suffer any prejudice, if this Court revokes the

leave to sue. Plaintiff No.2 has already secured a provisional injunction from the

Taiwan District Court, which covers the same subject matter.

3. The crux of the submission of the learned counsel for the

applicant/second defendant is as under:-

3.1.The Plaintiffs seek permanent injunction in relation to Letters of

Credit issued in Taiwan by the Defendant No.2, at the request of Plaintiff No.2

situated at Taiwan, confirmed by Defendant No.3 situated at Germany payable

5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6 A No. 3547 of 2024

to Defendant No.1 situated at London. Though Defendant No.4 is having an

office in Chennai, it is only an agent of a Danish entity and no relief is sought

against it. Plaintiff No.1 is the only Indian and he is not a party either to the

underlying contract or to the Letters of Credit and has no privity of contract

with any of the defendants. The Letters of Credit were issued and handled

outside India.

3.2.The present suit is in respect of the Letters of Credit and not the sale

contract between Plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.1. It is settled law that Letters

of Credit are independent of the underlying transaction. Therefore, the place of

delivery of goods cannot confer jurisdiction.

3.3.No material part of the cause of action has arisen in Chennai. No act

relating to the Letters of Credit took place in India and the allegations of fraud

and misrepresentation between parties also happened in Taiwan and London.

Courts have repeatedly held that a trivial or incidental connection is insufficient

to invoke jurisdiction, and in such circumstances, leave to sue ought to be

revoked.

3.4.Plaintiff No.2 had already initiated proceedings in Taiwan before

filing the present suit, seeking suspension of payment under the very same

Letters of Credit. The Taiwan District Court has granted a provisional injunction

6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7 A No. 3547 of 2024

restraining payments, which continues to operate and the matter is actively

pending there. The Plaintiffs’ claim that Taiwan court lacks jurisdiction over the

Letters of Credit is misleading, and the courts in Taiwan only has declined

jurisdiction over the underlying contractual dispute, not over the Letters of

Credit. Since the Plaintiffs are already protected by effective orders in Taiwan,

the balance of convenience clearly favours continuation of proceedings in

Taiwan.

3.5.Indian law is not applicable to the said Letters of Credit. They were

issued in Taiwan. Forcing the defendants to face parallel proceedings in India

would cause prejudice and inconvenience. For these reasons, the learned

counsel prays that the application be allowed and the leave to sue granted in

favour of the Plaintiff/first Respondent be revoked in the interest of justice and

equity.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for respondents 1 and

2/plaintiffs, in a nutshell, is as under:-

i) The goods covered under the underlying contract are meant to be

delivered at Chennai Port. However, the goods were diverted by the first

defendant to Lithuvenia, as evidenced by the communication of the fourth

7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8 A No. 3547 of 2024

defendant, the carrier of goods, and subsequently, the first defendant had

attempted to secure payment in respect of the Letters of Credit by utilising

fraudulent documents. As the intended destination for delivery of goods is the

Chennai Port, a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this

Court.

ii) Further, in Trade Case No.2 of 2024 (Year 113) filed by the second

plaintiff as against the first defendant herein before the Taiwan District Court,

the said court has held, by its order dated 25.6.2024, as under:-

"The plaintiff is incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin

Islands, and the defendant is incorporated under the laws of the

United Kingdom. The incorporation documents provided by the

plaintiff are on file and verifiable. Neither party is incorporated

under Taiwanese law. Although the plaintiff established an office in

Taiwan after filing the law suit, the contracts were made between

foreign companies with performance obligations in India, unrelated

to Taiwan. Considering these facts exercising jurisdiction in

Taiwan would contravene principles of fairness, proper

adjudication and procedural efficiency. Accordingly, under Article

249, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Code,

the plaintiff's law suit is dismissed."

iii) The appeal preferred in Case No.113-Kang-Zi-914 by the second

plaintiff was also dismissed by the Taiwan High Court on 26.8.2024, holding as

under:-

"Considering the foregoing, Taiwan courts lack international

jurisdiction over the dispute between the appellant and respondent.

Previous litigation in India and the respondent's participation in that

litigation further support denying Taiwan jurisdiction to avoid

8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9 A No. 3547 of 2024

violating principles of fairness, appropriateness and procedural

efficiency. The District Court corrected concluded that Taiwan

courts lack international jurisdiction and dismissed the appellant's

claim. The appellant's contentions are without merit."

iv) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there being a part of cause

of action within the jurisdiction of this court, the plaintiffs are constrained to

invoke the jurisdiction of this court by seeking leave of the court to sue and

thereby the leave granted by this court to the plaintiffs to sue the defendants 1 to

3 holds good and it does not warrant any interference.

5. The fourth defendant contended that he is only a formal party in this

suit and he has nothing to do with the adjudication between the plaintiffs and

defendants 1 to 3 herein.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

materials available on record.

7. It is clear that the second plaintiff has initiated necessary proceedings

against the applicant/first defendant before the Taiwan Court and obtained an

order of injunction as against the present Applicant on 8.4.2024. However, the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the third defendant pointing out

the documents with regard to payment made to the first defendant shows that

LC1 and LC2 were already honoured. Admittedly, the defendants have filed

9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10 A No. 3547 of 2024

the documents showing the payment of amount due under LC1 and LC2.

8. In Prashant Hasmukh Manek vs. Ramu Annamalai Ramasamy (2019

SCC OnLine Mad 5869), a Division Bench of this court has held as under:-

"25. Forum non-conveniens would normally involve when two

Courts have jurisdiction. The concept of forum nonconveniens is

also to be seen in the context of cause of action. There may be a

case where an element of oppressive and vexatious action exist,

not involving forum non-conveniens. For example, a suit can be

filed in Court which does not even have a jurisdiction. This suit is

certainly a vexatious one. Secondly, a suit can also be filed

contrary to the agreed terms in the arbitration agreement. In such

cases, there is no difficulty in holding that a Court of Second

instance can come to the aid of the party which is facing such

oppressive and vexatious litigation. This is for the reason that

there is absolutely no jurisdiction in the first instance and there is

a breach of contract involved in the latter. It is for the party

which alleges litigation to be vexatious and oppressive to satisfy

the Court. The jurisdiction of the court is limited to the extent of

finding the existence of element of such oppressiveness and

vexatiousness.

6. Though the plea of forum non-conveniens can be raised in any

one of the two courts, when the proceedings are already pending

between the parties before the first Court, then it would be

appropriate to proceed further instead of going to other Court,

especially when a process of verification of jurisdiction is done.

Remedy, in such a case, in any form, will have to be proceeded

only before the first court."

The observations in the above judgment are squarely applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

9. In Madanlal Jalan vs. Madanlal and others (1945 SCC OnLine Cal.

10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11 A No. 3547 of 2024

145), the Calcutta High Court has observed as under:-

"25. On a consideration of the legal principles established by the

judicial decisions mentioned above it seems to me that balance

of convenience is a material consideration in the exercise of

discretion under Clause 12. From these judicial authorities the

following propositions may, I think, be enunciated:

..... ..... .....

(g) that in giving or refusing leave or maintaining or revoking

leave the Court will ordinarily take into consideration the

balance of convenience and may, if the balance is definitely in

favour of the Defendant, apply the doctrine of forum

conveniens;"

As per the above dictum, when a suit is already instituted in another Court, it

would not be fair to subject the defendants to a parallel proceedings before this

Court.

10. In Bhuramuli Maskara & another vs. Ram Kumar Maskara &

others (1951 SCC OnLine Cal 36), the Calcutta High Court has held as under:-

"6. Apart from this, even if the interest of the parties in the said

premises No.173, Harrison Road which is nothing more than interest

of a monthly tenant in half of a room had been the subject-matter of

this suit, even then, I would have in exercise of my discretion revoked

the leave which had been granted under cl. 12 of the Charter. The

petitioner's case before me, as alleged in the petition is that the said

gadi at No.173, Harrison Road, where the business is carried on was

situate in a room at the said premises 173, Harrison Road, &

occupied only half of the said room for which a rent of Rs.22-8-0

used to be paid to the landlord. The said business, according to the

petitioner, had come to an end in the year 1947 & it had totally

stopped since that year. The respondent in their affidavit-in-

opposition have not denied, so far as I could find out, that the said

business used to be carried on in half of a room in the said premises

11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

12 A No. 3547 of 2024

No.173, Harrison Read, Calcutta, & a monthly rent of Rs. 22,8-0

used to be paid to the landlord, but they stated that the said business

continued until the year 1949 when by reason of the wrongful act &

conduct of the defendant, Ramkumar Maskara the said business came

to a stantstill. Thus the item of property which is the only item which

could be said to be within the jurisdiction of this court out of a long

list of properties consisting of about 50 in number is nothing but the

interest in a monthly tenancy with respect to half of a room in

premises No.173, Harrison Road, Calcutta. If that isthe position,

then, I would in exercise of my discretion revoke the leave which has

already been obtained. In my opinion, both in the matter of granting

& revoking leave already granted under Cl.12 of the Charter there is

always an element of discretion vested in court. The word 'leave' in

cl.12 suggests it. In my opinion, merely because a part of the cause

of action arises or a part of the land is within the jurisdiction of this

Court, a litigant cannot claim as of right that leave under cl.12 of the

Charter before filing his suit or that leave already granted under

cl.12 at the initial stage should be retained. In the case of Madanlal

v. Madanilal, Das J. laid down as one of the tests that if only a part

of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction then it is a

question of discretion for the Court to give or refuse leave or where

leave has already been granted to revoke or maintain the leave. Apart

from this, on the question of bad-faith as Das J. E. also held in that

case, the “insignificance of the part of the cause shown to have

arisen within jurisdiction” may “by itself suggest bad motive.” In

my opinion the said observation is equally applicable to the case

where almost a negligible part of the a properties in a suit for

partition is within the jurisdiction of the court. in which the suit is

filed. In this case also it may be contended that the fact, that the

jurisdiction of this court has been sought to be founded on the

existence of an almost insignificant part of the properties belonging

to the parties, would by itself suggest bad motive. As I have already

said that the business carried on at the said premises on the admitted

case of both parties had come to an end at least a year before & the

property in question is only a tenancy right with respect to a half

portion in a room situate at No.173, Harrison Road, Calcutta."

11. In another decision viz., Rekhab Chand Jain vs. Paras Das Bhartiya

12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

13 A No. 3547 of 2024

(1968 SCC OnLine Cal 72), the Calcuatta High Court has held as under:-

"8. It is settled law that for the purposes of invoking jurisdiction of

the Court the expression “Cause of action” has a distinct

connotation. Merely saying that something has happened within the

jurisdiction of this Court would not be effective in conferring

jurisdiction on the Court or to ask for leave under Clause 12 of the

Letters Patent. It must first be a cause of action in the suit;

secondly, such cause of action must arise within the jurisdiction of

this Court and thirdly, that part of the cause of action on which

jurisdiction is sought for, must affect the defendant or defendants

against whom relief is asked for. In this case, the averments made in

paragraph, 2 of the plaint have been made to

establish that the defendant has written, signed and published the

impugned letter containing the alleged, defamation at Mainpuri.

That makes out a good cause of action for the purpose of

proceeding against the defendant in a suit. The cause of action for

damages is complete but that part of the cause of action would not

confer jurisdiction on this Court because that has arisen outside the

jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the plaintiff has to make some

more averments whereby the defendant would be made liable to the

plaintiff."

As clearly observed in the above judgments, the communication relied upon by

the Plaintiffs to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court is nothing but an

insignificant fact. Leave to sue granted in favour of the plaintiffs need not be

maintained on the strength of the said letter.

12. In the present case, except a communication showing the destination

port as Chennai, no cause of action is shown by the plaintiffs to have arisen

within the jurisdiction of this court. Further, the second plaintiff, who had

13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

14 A No. 3547 of 2024

entered into sale contract with the first defendant and opened the Letters of

Credit in question, had initiated proceedings against the first defendant in the

Taiwan Court and obtained some relief in the nature of injunction. Moreover,

the Letters of Credit are independent from the underlying contract between the

second plaintiff and the first defendant. Therefore, taking cue from the above

decisions, this Court finds that there is not even a part of cause of action that has

arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, in this matter to seek indulgence of

this court and therefore, the leave already granted by this court has to be

necessarily revoked.

13.Accordingly, leave to sue already granted by this Court is hereby

revoked and the present Application stands allowed. No costs.

05.01.2026

ssk.

Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Internet:Yes

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15 A No. 3547 of 2024

To

1.Mr Chandrakanth, Proprietor, M/s.Adishwar Impex,

1

st

Floor, No.126/1, K.S.Garden, 4

th

Cross,

Lalbagh Road, Sudhama Nagar,

Bangalore Urban, Karnataka 560 027.

2. M/s.Grand Dignity Industrial Co. Ltd.,

rep. by its Power of Attorney Agent Mr.Chandrakanth,

10F, No.356, Fuxing N.Rd, Taipei City, Taiwan.

3. M/s.Trade Direct Europe Ltd.,

rep. by its Director, One Canada Square, 37th Floor,

Canary Wharf, London, E14 5AA, United Kingdom.

4. M/s.Deutsche Bank AG(Frankfurt),

rep. by its Branch Manager, Taunusanlage 12,

Frankfurt AM Main, Germany.

5. M/s.MAERSK Line India Pvt. Ltd.,

rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

3rd Floor, Prestige Palladium Bayan,

Greams Road, Thousand Lights West,

Chennai 600 006.

15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

16 A No. 3547 of 2024

N.SENTHILKUMAR J.

ssk.

P.D. ORDER IN A.No. 3547 of 2024 in

C.S(COMM DIV) No.31of 2024

Delivered on

05.01.2026

16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis