9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction 2. Cause of Action 3. Compounding of Offences under the Companies Act Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The primary issue addressed in the judgment is the question of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner sought the High Court of Delhi's intervention for offences allegedly committed by a company whose registered office is situated outside Delhi. The court emphasized that, under Section 10(1)(a) of the Companies Act, the High Court having jurisdiction is the one where the registered office of the company is located, unless jurisdiction has been conferred on a District Court. The court reiterated that any prosecution or charge sheet related to the offences must be filed within the territorial limits where the alleged offence was committed, which in this case is Mumbai. The court cited several precedents, including Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. and Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, to support its conclusion that the High Court of Delhi lacked jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits. 2. Cause of Action: The court examined whether any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of Delhi. It was noted that the violations attributed to respondent No. 5 and the inaction of respondent No. 4 occurred in Mumbai. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of "cause of action" in Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd., which requires that facts pleaded must have a nexus or relevance to the dispute to confer jurisdiction. The court found that none of the facts pleaded by the petitioner constituted a cause of action within Delhi's jurisdiction. The court also referenced the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, which clarified that the place where the alleged offence was committed is crucial in determining territorial jurisdiction for criminal offences. 3. Compounding of Offences under the Companies Act: The petitioner acknowledged that some offences alleged against respondent No. 5 had been compounded, as evidenced by an affidavit and details provided in Annexure 1. However, the petitioner contended that certain offences were non-compoundable. The court referred to Section 621A(1) of the Companies Act, which allows for the compounding of certain offences not punishable with imprisonment only or with imprisonment and fine. The court did not delve into the merits of whether the offences were compoundable or non-compoundable, as it primarily focused on the jurisdictional issue. Conclusion: The court concluded that the High Court of Delhi did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the registered offices of the companies involved were outside Delhi, and the alleged offences occurred outside Delhi. The writ petition was disposed of on these grounds, with the court clarifying that it had not made any determination on the merits of the case concerning non-compoundable offences.
|
