A/1556/2026 of Sheikha Hind Suhail Al Mukhaini Bahwan Vs Durgaprasad Shanmugam on 16 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

The application in A.No.1556 of 2026 has been filed to reject the Plaint filed by the Plaintiff in C.S.(Comm). No. 65 of 2026 on the file of this Hon’ble Court.

2. The application in A.No.1557 of 2026 has been filed to revoke the leave granted by the order dated 19.02.2026 in Application no. 877 of 2026 in C.S (Comm.Div.) No.65 of 2026.

3. Heard both sides.

4. In a suit filed for declaration of a settlement deed and release deed that had been executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant to be non-est, void and unenforceable, which is the primary relief, the applications for rejection of the plaint as well as for revoking the leave granted had been taken up by the defendants.

5. Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first applicant, at the outset, would submit that the respondent/plaintiff had, without any cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, had approached this Court seeking for a declaration that the settlement agreement and release agreement that had been executed by the respondent at Dubai, is not valid and binding on him, apart from other ancillary reliefs. In that regard, he would submit that no cause of action had arisen before this Court.

6. He would further submit that the respondent had cleverly impleading 2nd and 3rd applicant, who were not parties either to the settlement agreement or the release deed and is attempting to rope in the first applicant, who is neither a citizen of India nor a resident of India. He would submit that both the 2nd and 3rd applicants are only witnesses to the aforesaid documents and adding them as necessary parties is only with an intention to abuse the process of Court to maintain the suit against the first applicant.

7. He would contend that the various documents that had been relied upon by the respondent were all executed in Dubai and none of the causes of action relating to the suit had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. He would further submit that the averments of the respondent to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court, namely, the availability of certain corporate records, statutory filings and property documents and the location of immovable properties mentioned in the settlement agreement, cannot, at any stretch of imagination, support the claim for cause of action of the suit.

8. He would submit that the companies that are shown to be within the jurisdiction of this Court are not actually within the jurisdiction of this Court and are geographically outside the jurisdiction of this Court. He would further submit that registration of the company with an authority within the jurisdiction of this Court and the filings done before it cannot also clothe this Court with jurisdiction. He would submit that the suit had not been filed as Suit for immovable property within the jurisdiction of this Court, but only a suit, seeking for a declaration of the documents that have been executed outside the jurisdiction of this Court to be non-binding on the respondents.

9. He would further submit that when the respondent, being a party to a document, cannot seek a relief of declaration, but would have to seek a prayer for cancellation of the document. According to him, a declaration could only be sought by a third party to the document and not by a party to the document. He would further submit that, in respect of part of the cause of action arising out of the settlement agreement and the release deed, the respondent had approached the Court in U.S. In that regard, he would further submit that the respondent is attempting to approach various Courts with the malice to harass the applicant.

10. He would also strongly contend that this Court would also not be a Court of forum conveniens for the parties, even assuming cause of action based upon the residence of the 2nd and 3rd applicants. In that regard, he would also seek application of forum non conveniens. He would submit that in the plaint as well as in the documents supporting the plaint, namely, the exchange of notices, various other witnesses, who are primarily citizens of Foreign Countries and living outside the jurisdiction of this Court have also to be examined.

11. He would further submit that there can be no dispute that the present suit is an action in personam and in that regard, he would submit that it is well settled that only if a foreign defendant either resides within the jurisdiction of this Court or voluntarily appears or had conceded to the jurisdiction of this Court, the Court cannot have jurisdiction over such foreign defendants. In that regard, he had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of World Tanker Vs. SNP Shipping Service, reported in (1998) 5 SCC

310. He would submit that the appearance of the first applicant before this Court is without prejudice to her rights to contest and claim jurisdiction on the ground of she being a foreign defendant.

12. He had also relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court to classify the suit as an action in personam.

(i) Deccan Paper Mills Co Ltd., Vs. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 786;

(ii) Modi Entertainment Network and another Vs. W.S.G Cricket Pte.Ltd., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 341.

13. He would contend that a cause of action is a bundle of facts and facts would be relevant to vest jurisdiction with the Court. A reading of the plaint, according to him, would suggest that the cause of action for the suit is the execution of the settlement deed and the release deed and other documents on alleged acts of coercion and duress by the applicants. He would submit that even admission of fact of such events it had occurred at a place outside the jurisdiction of this Court, in a foreign territory. He would further submit that the cause of action for filing the suit is something which preceded filing and not the actions which may follow. In that regard, he had relied upon the followingn judgments:

(i) A.B.C.Laminart Pvt. Ltd., Vs. A.P.Agencies reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163;

(ii) National Westminster Bank Ltd., Vs. Devraj Nensee and Co and Ors, reported in (1997) 88 Com Cas 625 ;

(iii) Premier Distilleries Vs. Sushi Distilleries, reported in 2001 (3) CTC

652.

14. He would submit that the 2nd and 3rd applicants were mere witnesses and had neither been necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Any relief as against them could only be subject to the respondents succeeding in their attempt as against the settlement agreement and the release deed. In this regard, he would also relied upon the judgment in the case of Kaka Hajee Ishaque Vs. Kaka Md.Saddiq, reported in (1969) 82 LW 622.

15. Taking this Court to the notices that had been issued by the respondent/plaintiff, he would submit that there had been no allegation as against applicants 2 and 3 for being a party to the suit. He would also take this Court to the proceedings that were initiated by the respondents in the U.S Court to claim that defendants 2 and 3 were not impleaded as parties and there were no allegations of coercion and duress on their part in the said plea.

16. Even in a complaint filed by the respondent at Dubai, the complaint was only against the first applicant and not applicants 2 and 3. In that regard, he would submit that they had been made parties to the suit only to clothe this Court with jurisdiction, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. In that regard, he had also relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Rohit Shekhar Vs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari reported in MANU D E 0534 of 1996;

(ii) Secor Twenty-one Owners Welfare Association Vs. Air Force Naval Housing Board, reported in MANU/DE/0534/1996 and

(iii) Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524.

17. Relying upon the following judgments,

(i) Modi Entertainment Network and another Vs. W.S.G Cricket Pte. Ltd., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 341,

(ii) Spiliada Maritime Corpn. Vs. Cansulex Ltd., reported in (1987) AC 460,

(iii) Modi Entertainment Network and Another Vs. W.S.G Cricket Pte. Ltd., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 341,

(iv) Duro Flex Pvt., Ltd., Vs. Duroflex Sittings System, reported in 2014

(6) CTC 577,

(v) Alcon Electronics (P) Ltd., Vs. Celem S.A. of France, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 253 and

(vi) Ahmed Abdullah Al Ghurair Vs. Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2019) 13 SCC 259, he would contend that for maintaining a suit within the jurisdiction of this Court, the principle of forum conveniens, is also a factor which has to be considered. In that regard, he would submit that the present suit filed based upon non-exclusive jurisdiction of the UAE Courts would only mean the jurisdiction of such Court had not been ousted.

18. It is also, according to him that the perusal of the plaint would also indicate that the documents, which are sought to be declared as null and void and not binding on the respondent have all been executed at Dubai and drawing this Court’s attention to the notices exchanged between the parties and also the claim made before the US Court that there are witnesses, who are the residents of Dubai and Oman, against whom allegations have been made and that they are necessary parties to be examined. In that regard, he would submit that the Court at Dubai alone would be the more appropriate forum and in that regard, even assuming that this Court has jurisdiction, this Court should shun away the respondent to approach the convenient forum.

19. He would further submit that the situs of shares alone cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court. Hence, he prays this Court to revoke leave as well as reject the plaint.

20. Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second and third applicants, supporting the arguments of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first applicant, drawing attention to the pleadings in the plaint, would submit that the second and third applicants are only witnesses to the documents, which were sought to be declared as null and void and not binding on the respondent.

21. Referring to the various documents that had been filed in support of the plaint, he would submit that there can be no allegations against the second and third applicants of coercion in executing the documents. He had also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of V.Selladurai Vs. N.Nethaji and another, reported in 2006 4 LW 343 and also the judgment of the Delhi High Court to contend that they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit and have been added as parties to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court and had abused the process in obtaining the leave to prosecute the plaint, which otherwise would fall wholly outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

22. He would further submit that when there are more than one defendant and when any of them reside beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, such Court’s jurisdiction would depend on the nature of cause of action and not simply based upon the cause of action that some of the defendants reside within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, he prays this Court to grant the reliefs sought for by the applicant.

23. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent in A.No.1556 of 2026, would submit that the respondent is a co-founder, partner and shareholder in a group of companies operating across 50 Countries. The first applicant is a key shareholder and the person exercising the dominant control over the affairs of the said group and also the Director in the Indian companies, which is at the apex of the group company structure. It is the respondent's leadership that earned the recognition of the group companies worldwide.

24. In and around June 2021, the respondent was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, an aggressive and life-threatening form of blood cancer. He would submit that the respondent had struck a deal with a third party company for infusion of its capital, which would further fuel the growth of the company and in that regard, the respondent was called upon through the representative of the first applicant for a meeting at Dubai on his transit to United States of America for treatment, since the first applicant was a resident of Oman. During the said meeting, the respondent was confronted with the false complaint and was coerced to execute the settlement agreement, release deed and various other letters of resignation and share transfer forms. He would also submit that, in spite of which, criminal complaints were filed against the respondent and his son and the Court in Dubai had also acquitted them on the sole ground that the Courts in Dubai do not have jurisdiction to hear the case. He would submit that the Indian companies of the group are all registered at Chennai and based upon the settlement agreement and the release deed and other documents executed, the respondent had been removed as a Director in the Indian companies, which also forms part of the cause of action that had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court before the filing of the suit.

25. He would further submit that applicants 2 and 3 are permanent residents of Chennai and also allege that the coercion agreement and other documents are jointly prepared by applicants 1 to 3. That apart, he would submit that under the coercion agreement, the shares that had been held by the petitioner and his family in Tekion Corporation are also sought to be transferred within the jurisdiction of this Court.

26. The second applicant had now been made as a Director in the company as a reward for his participation in the acts of coercion and duress, forcing the respondent to execute the alleged documents. This itself would show that, pursuant to the execution of the alleged documents, the same had been acted upon within the jurisdiction of this Court and in that regard, he would submit that, at the outset that the Court has jurisdiction to deal with the case, as respondents 2 and 3 reside within the jurisdiction of this Court.

27. The Removal of the respondent and clothing the second applicant as a Director of the group of companies would itself form part of the cause of action, which arises within the jurisdiction of this Court for maintaining the suit before this Court. He would further submit that the first applicant is also a shareholder in the companies registered and a Director in the Indian companies and therefore, she is also bound by the Indian laws with regard to the same and when it relates to the entitlement of the respondent to continue to be a Director of the company, dehors of the agreement, which had come into being and due to the acts of coercion and duress at the behest of the applicant, the applicant cannot be heard to claim that this Court do not have jurisdiction.

28. Taking this Court through the various averments in the plaint, he would submit that there are clear averments with regard to the role played by the second and third applicants in the challenged documents coming into being and that apart, there are specific prayers against them and in that regard, he would submit that they both are also proper and necessary parties to the suit. When that being so, their situs of permanent residence within the jurisdiction of this Court would also entitle the respondent to maintain the suit before this Court.

29. With regard to the arguments made by the applicants on forum conveniens, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that when none of the parties are either residents at Dubai and also none of the companies are having business at Dubai, the Courts in Dubai cannot have jurisdiction to decide the suit, much less cannot be a forum conveniens to the parties.

30. He would submit that the Courts in Dubai would be a forum non conveniens to the parties. Filing of the suit in U.S relates to an employment in the concerned Country, for which Courts in U.S will only have the jurisdiction to try. Filing of the said suit in U.S Court cannot oust the jurisdiction of this Court in trying a comprehensive suit, which also includes cause of action that has arisen before this Court and is to arise before this Court.

31. He would submit that throwing the plaint away on the claims made by the applicants alone, would only lead to multiplicity of proceedings, as implementation of the agreement or its consequence thereof could only be the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

32. He would submit that, based upon the alleged coercive agreements, the applicants have acted upon by implementing the resignation letter, which has been obtained by such coercion and duress and appointing the second applicant as a Director in the group companies in India. Hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the application.

33. Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent in A.No.1557 of 2026, supporting the claim made by Mr.P.S.Raman, learned

Senior Counsel, would submit that the claim of the applicant that the suit for declaration would not be maintainable, as the respondent was a party to the document, is wholly misconceived. He would further submit that the nature of the document is only executory and no concluded contract had taken place. Only in continuation of the executory documents, further action could be initiated and such actions would have to take place within the jurisdiction of this Court.

34. He would also draw the attention of this Court with regard to the removal of the respondent as a Director and appointment of the second applicant as a Director in the Indian company. According to him, the subsequent conduct based upon the executory document would also form part of a cause of action for the respondent to maintain the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court, as the resignation from directorship, appointment of the second applicant as director and transfer of shares, which has situs in Chennai and the location of the immovable properties in Chennai, are all indicators for the maintainability of the suit at Chennai. In that regard, he had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ahmed Abdullah Al Ghurair Vs. Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2019) 13 SCC 259.

35. As regards the claim of forum conveniens at Dubai, as claimed by the applicants, he would submit that none of the parties to the suit have residence in

Dubai, nor any of the companies of the group has roots in Dubai, except execution of the alleged document and the coercive threat in Dubai. He would submit that the first applicant has a place of business at Chennai, being a Director of the companies and the second and third applicants are all permanent residents at Chennai.

36. He would further submit that a witness to a document can also be a party to the suit, particularly when fraud is alleged even as against them in execution of the documents. In that regard, he would take this Court to the various averments in the plaint, wherein specific averments have been made against the applicants 2 and 3 in the suit. Hence, he prays for dismissal.

37. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, in support of their submissions, had relied upon various judgments.

38. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

39. The primordial contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants is that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and that there has been an abuse of the process of Court by adding parties, who are not necessary or proper for disposal of the lis, the respondent had abused the process in obtaining leave to maintain the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court.

40. It is trite law that, for revoking the leave or for rejecting the plaint, the averments made in the plaint and the plaint documents alone are to be gone into by the Court. The second and third applicants had been represented through a Power of Attorney by name one K.Murali. In support of his authorization, the Power of Attorney executed by them had been placed on record.

41. As regards the second applicant, namely, Gangadharan Venugopal, the Power of Attorney that had been executed and adjudicated before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar had been placed on record. A perusal of the same would indicate that he is currently residing at Muscat and in that regard, he had nominated his agent. The copy of the passport that had been appended to the adjudicated Power of Attorney would indicate that the second applicant is a permanent resident at Chennai, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

42. The Power of Attorney had been executed by the third applicant before the Notary Public at Chennai on 16.03.2026. The Power of Attorney had been executed, showing that he had been a resident at Muscat and had temporarily come down to Chennai, wherein he had executed the Power of Attorney solely for the purpose of defending the present suit. On the other hand, during the course of the proceedings, the copy of the passport belonging to the third applicant had also been placed on record, indicating that he is also a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of this Court.

43. As regards the cause of action for maintaining the suit and the various contentions raised based upon the disputed facts, it is to be noted that the respondent, who had been a Director in the group companies, admittedly, pursuant to the alleged settlement deed, the release deed and other documents executed by him at Dubai, had been acted upon by the applicants, whereby the second applicant had now been elevated to the position of Director in one of the group companies after the disputed documents. This had not been specifically denied by him.

44. In the preceding findings, this Court had come to the view that not only part of the cause of action had arisen before this Court, but also the applicants 2 and 3, who are the second and third defendants, are permanent residents within the jurisdiction of this Court, for the Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. That apart, various averments as regards to the participation of applicants 2 & 3 in the process of execution of the documents challenged in the suit had also been made. The said averments could only be adjudicated during the trial in the suit. The issue of misjoinder of parties as raised by the applicants on the strength of the averments made therein cannot be gone into at the stage of deciding an Order VII Rule 11 application for rejection of plaint or revoking the leave that had been granted by this Court.

45. As an alternative, the learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the applicants have also pleaded forum conveniens for rejection of the plaint. It is to be noted that the claim for forum conveniens had been made based upon the claims of the residences of the applicants and as to the availability of the witnesses, which would be more convenient to him.

46. Various judgments relied upon by the respective learned Senior Counsels on the issue of forum conveniens and forum non conveniens have all been decided at a stage when the Courts had to deal with cases, which required appearance of parties in person, including the witnesses. The said position has now been changed due to the advent of the deadly pandemic Covid-19.

47. The Courts are conducting proceedings through Video-Conferencing including recording of evidence of the respective witnesses from every corner of this world. This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact of the Rules framed by this Court in recording of evidence of witnesses, who reside outside the jurisdiction of this Court. In such march of procedure that had been devised by the Courts in view of the advent of the COVID pandemic, this Court is of the view that the principles of forum conveniens and forum non-conveniens which came into being through judicial pronouncements making the Courts to oust its jurisdiction would have to give way for effective implementation of the Rules that have been framed by the Courts by which this Court need not oust its natural jurisdiction. A further reason would be that the principles laid so cannot be permitted to under a statutory rule to be rendered otiose. In such view of the matter, the arguments advanced by the respective Senior Counsels on the aforesaid principles are not being dealt with.

48. In fine, this Court do not find any merits in the applications and accordingly, both the applications stand dismissed. No costs.

49. Since this Court had restricted the interim orders already granted in O.A.No.171 of 2026 in C.S(Comm.Div.)No.65 of 2026 till the pronouncement of the order, the same shall be extended till the date of the next hearing of the said application. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No kak

K.KUMARESH BABU J. kak A Nos.1556 & 1557 of 2026 in C.S(Comm.Div.)No.65 of 2026 16-10-2026