2003 (3) TMI 46 - HC - Income Tax

Power of HC - cause of action - In the instant case, it is clear from the petition itself that the CBI, Mumbai, was investigating, the properties are situated at Mumbai, the acts are alleged to have been committed by the private respondents at Mumbai and therefore this court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Suffice it to say that as no cause of action has arisen in the State of Delhi and even charge-sheet, if required is to be filed in the court at Mumbai, this court cannot entertain the petition in view of the provisions contained in the Constitution and the law laid down by the apex court - petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
2. Allegations of corruption and misconduct against respondents Nos. 5 and 6.
3. Registration of FIR and investigation by CBI.
4. Disciplinary proceedings against respondents Nos. 5 and 6.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court:
The primary issue addressed is whether the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The court emphasized that the cause of action must arise within its territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner's counsel argued that since the head office of the CBI and the office of the Vigilance Commission are situated in Delhi, the court has jurisdiction. However, the court noted that the alleged offenses and the respondents' residences are in Mumbai, and the investigation records are also in Mumbai. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including *Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.*, *Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu*, and *Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra*, to underline that the cause of action must have a significant connection to the court's territorial jurisdiction. The court concluded that the entire cause of action arose in Mumbai, and thus, the Delhi High Court lacks jurisdiction.

2. Allegations of Corruption and Misconduct Against Respondents Nos. 5 and 6:
The petition alleged that respondents Nos. 5 and 6, while serving as government officers, misused their positions for personal gain. Specific allegations included respondent No. 5 renting a flat in a posh locality for Rs. 15,000 per month plus a fixed deposit of Rs. 2 crores without interest, later adjusted to 6% interest, causing a loss to the state exchequer. Allegations against respondent No. 6 included involvement in a scam reported by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The court noted that these acts were committed in Mumbai.

3. Registration of FIR and Investigation by CBI:
The petitioner sought directions for the CBI to register an FIR and investigate the alleged offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code. The court observed that the CBI's anti-corruption branch in Mumbai was already investigating the matter. It was highlighted that the properties, records, and alleged wrongful acts were all situated in Mumbai, reinforcing the lack of jurisdiction for the Delhi High Court.

4. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Respondents Nos. 5 and 6:
The petition also requested that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 initiate disciplinary proceedings against respondents Nos. 5 and 6 for their alleged irregularities. The court reiterated that since the cause of action and related activities occurred in Mumbai, such proceedings should be initiated in the appropriate forum within the jurisdiction of Mumbai.

Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that the cause of action arose entirely within the territorial limits of Mumbai, Maharashtra. The court did not consider the merits of the allegations, focusing solely on the jurisdictional issue. The petitioner's grievances were directed to be addressed in the appropriate forum in Mumbai.

← Previous Next →