Forum non conveniens

Section 20, C.P.C. contains a general rule regarding territorial jurisdiction which inter alia, enjoins that a suit must be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises

Explanation to said section prescribes that a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office, or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place

Since this provision primarily keeps the defendant in perspective, the corporation spoken of in the explanation, obviously refers to the defendant

Plain reading of the section arguably allows the plaintiff a multitude of choices in regard to where it may institute its lis, suit or action

Corporations and partnership firms, and even sole proprietorship concerns, could well be transacting business simultaneously in several cities

If subsections (a) and (b) of S. 20, C.P.C., are to be interpreted disjunctively from subsection (c), as the use of the word 'or' appears to permit the plaintiff to file the suit at any of the places where the cause of action may have arisen regardless of whether the defendant has even a subordinate office at that place

However, if the defendants' location is to form the fulcrum of jurisdiction, and it has an office also at the place where the cause of action has occurred, then the plaintiff is precluded from instituting the suit anywhere else

Obviously, this is also because every other place would constitute a forum non conveniens.

Principle of forum non conveniens was a discretionary power, which allowed Courts to dismiss a case where another court or forum was much better suited to hear the same

Such dismissal did not prevent a plaintiff from re-filing his or her case in a more appropriate forum and said doctrine also allowed a Court with jurisdiction over a case to dismiss the same on ground that convenience of the parties and interest of justice would be better served if said case was brought in a court having proper jurisdiction at another venue

Doctrine of forum non conveniens i.e. that some other forum was more appropriate in the sense that the same was more suitable for the ends of justice

Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction, after giving consideration to the interests of the parties and the requirements of justice, on ground that a case could be suitably tried only in another court

Basic principle was that a court was satisfied that there was some other available forum, having competent jurisdiction, which was the appropriate forum for the trial of the action (meaning such a forum in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice).

Principle of forum non conveniens was a discretionary power, which allowed Courts to dismiss a case where another court or forum was much better suited to hear the same

Such dismissal did not prevent a plaintiff from re-filing his or her case in a more appropriate forum and said doctrine also allowed a Court with jurisdiction over a case to dismiss the same on ground that convenience of the parties and interest of justice would be better served if said case was brought in a court having proper jurisdiction at another venue

Doctrine of forum non conveniens i.e. that some other forum was more appropriate in the sense that the same was more suitable for the ends of justice

Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction, after giving consideration to the interests of the parties and the requirements of justice, on ground that a case could be suitably tried only in another court

Basic principle was that a court was satisfied that there was some other available forum, having competent jurisdiction, which was the appropriate forum for the trial of the action (meaning such a forum in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice).

Doctrine of 'forum non conveniens' means that some other forum is more proper in the sense of more suitable ends of justice

Choice of forum selection clause should be honoured by parties and enforced by courts

Said clauses cannot be objected, being improper because it tends to oust a court's jurisdiction, in hardly more than a vestigial legal fiction.

Doctrine of forum non conveniens may not apply in a context where both the courts are in the same 'country'.