vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2467 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2467 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2467 OF 2008 Bhanu Abhilashi ... Petitioner V/s. Export Import Bank of India ... Respondent Mr.Shailesh Kapoor i/b Kadam & co. for Petitioner Mr.Sudip Sen a/w Kunal Damle i/b S.S. Pathak for Respondent CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED: MARCH 2, 2009 MARCH 2, 2009 MARCH 2, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Export Import Bank of India filed a suit on the Original Side of this Court being Suit No.2933 of 2006, against the petitioner, Bhanu Abhilashi, praying for the following reliefs: a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order and decree in favour of the Plaintiff Bank and against the Defendant for a sum of Rs.7,40,143/- together with further interest thereon at 11.5% per annum from the date of the suit till payment as more specifically set out in the Particulars of Claim at Exhibit Q annexed to this Plant; b) The Defendant be ordered to pay to thePlaintiff the costs of this Suit; c) For such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require be granted. 2. The suit was contested by the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, an application was made : 2 : to the Court by the Bank for leave to withdraw the suit unconditionally. The Court by its order dated 16.4.2007 permitted the Bank to withdraw the suit unconditionally. 3. After withdrawing the suit unconditionally, the Bank initiated proceedings before the Court in Singapore on 18.5.2007. In that suit, the Bank claimed a sum of Rs.10 lacs based upon the bond executed by the Petitioner in favour of the Bank. The suit was later amended to include the claim of three months’ salary. These proceedings are stated to be pending before the Court in Singapore. 4. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner filed an application, pleading forum non convenience, and questioning the jurisdiction of the Courts at Singapore. This was not accepted by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court at Singapore. The order of the Appellate Court dated 28.8.2007 has been placed on the record of this file as well. In the proceedings pending before the Singapore Court, preliminary issues were framed. Those inter alia include an issue as to "whether the plaintiff is precluded from filing the present suit having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier suit filed in Bombay High Court". These issues, as per the record produced before us, are to be decided under the laws of : 3 : the Republic of India pursuant to Order 23 Rule 2 of the Rules of the Court. 5. The petitioner suffered a partial decree before the Court at Singapore. According to him, three months’ salary was not disputed by him. Resultantly that Court passed a partial decree vide its judgment dated 29.5.2008. 6. After all these proceedings, the petitioner instituted the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the Bank be directed to withdraw unconditionally Suit No.MC11400/2007 filed in the subordinate Court of the Republic of Singapore, for cancelling the bond dated 17.3.2003 and for restraning the Bank from enforcing the bond. Parties have been heard in the matter at some length. 7. One of the basic questions raised before us is with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition, particularly in view of the reliefs that have been claimed. In view of the course that we propose to adopt while dealing with the present writ petition, it would not be necessary to render a decision on this question. : 4 : 8. On merits, the suit was instituted by the bank in this Court for recovery of an amount based upon the bond dated 17.3.2003 executed by the petitioner. This suit was withdrawn by the Bank unconditionally. Once such a proceeding is withdrawn unconditionally with no opposition from the defendants in that suit in terms of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the party is precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Similarly, a party which institutes a suit and does not claim all the reliefs that are available to it on the date of the institution of the suit would be deemed to have abandoned or given up any other claim which could have been claimed at the relevant point of time. Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has an exception where at the time of instituting the suit, the leave of the Court is obtained in accordance with law. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the suit was withdrawn unconditionally without seeking leave of the Court to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action nor was the suit instituted with leave as contemplated under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is the position of law as far as Indian Law is concerned. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regulate the conduct of a suit by a party before a Court of competent jurisdiction in India. : 5 : We are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner and primarily due to his own conduct. The petitioner has not come to this Court with a complete disclosure of true facts and with clean hands. Before the petitioner can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it was expected of him to disclose complete facts and documents and bring them to the notice of the Court. The Petitioner made no reference to the order of the Subordinate Court as well as of the Appellate Court in Singapore except for making a vague reference in para 9.26 of the petition by saying that the application was not accepted. The copies of the orders were not filed alongwith the writ petition. On the contrary, the respondents have produced copies of the orders before us during the course of the hearing. Another factor which has weighed with us in declining relief to the petitioner is that the petitioner has participated in the proceedings before the Courts at Singapore, inasmuch as firstly, he filed an application and elected to pursue those remedies by approaching even the appellate Court at Singapore. Thereafter the petitioner has suffered a partial decree for the claim of the Bank in relation to three months’ salary. The Singapore Court has framed an issue with regard to jurisdiction. Therefore, we see no reason why we should interfere in the proceedings directly or indirectly or deal with the : 6 : questions placed for determination in both the Courts at Singapore. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be availed of in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Finally, there is no violation of any legal right that has been vested in the petitioner. Secondly, the relief claimed could also be claimed by the petitioner by instituting proceedings before the competent Court in Singapore Court and in India as well. 9. For these reasons, we do not wish to interfere. 10. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 11. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of the order. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (CHIEF JUSTICE) (CHIEF JUSTICE) (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)