Konamaneni v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Limited: ChD 20 Dec 2001

The claimants founded their action on the assertion that the defendants had been corrupt in obtaining contracts in India. The defendants argued that the English courts had no jurisdiction. The claimants held various small shareholdings in a company used as a vehicle for paying bribes, and sought return of the money paid. It was a derivative action.
Held: The company should normally be claimant in such an action. Such claims need not be restricted to English companies, and the English courts were the appropriate lex fori for this claim, but only if there was no other appropriate forum. The parties could offer to submit to Indian jurisdiction, and the defendant had done so. The courts of the place of incorporation will almost invariably be the appropriate forum for issues which relate to the existence of the right of shareholders to sue on behalf of the company. Most of the witnesses would be in India. The Indian connections of this case were overwhelming.

Justice Lawrence Collins
Times 31-Jan-2002, [2001] EWHC Ch 470, [2002] 1 WLR 1269
Civil Procedure Rules 19.9 6.21 2(a)
England and Wales
CitedPrudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (No 2) CA 1982
A plaintiff shareholder cannot recover damages merely because the company in which he has an interest has suffered damage. He cannot recover a sum equal to the diminution in the market value of his shares, or equal to the likely diminution in . .
CitedHeyting v Dupont CA 1964
The plaintiff owned shares in a company registered in Jersey and created to make the most of an invention. The articles contained a deadlock provision.
Held: This was ‘essentially a dispute between two discordant partners’ There was a general . .
AppliedBP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt 1976
The fact that the contract was governed by English law was the predominating factor to be borne in mind when deciding jurisdiction.
The court should be careful before describing as non-disclosure as material not included in an affidavit in . .

Cited by:
CitedBAS Capital Funding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Ag London, Paine Webber Capital Inc, PW Exe Lp, Pw Partners 1999 Lp v Medfinco Limited, Abacus Holdings Limited, Andreas W Gerdes, HTC Inc, etc ChD 25-Jul-2003
The claimants wanted to bring actions in respect of various matters under shareholders agreements in complex international joint ventures. Leave was given to serve English proceedings in Malta, and the claim form and particulars of claim were faxed . .
CitedIslamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others ComC 6-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings . .
CitedMetropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others QBD 16-Jul-2009
The claimant complained that the defendant had published on its internet forums comments by posters which were defamatory of it, and which were then made available by the second defendant search engine. The court was asked what responsibility a . .
CitedRoberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be . .
CitedIesini and Others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and Others ChD 16-Oct-2009
The claimants were shareholders in Westrip, accusing the Defendant directors of deliberately engaging in a course of conduct which has led to Westrip losing ownership and control of a very valuable mining licence and which, but for their . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Company, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.167403