9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1994 (6) TMI 193 - SC - Indian LawsWhether any part of the cause of action for filing the petition had arisen within the jurisdiction of the said High Court to entitle it to entertain, hear and decide the said petition? Whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition? Held that - Appeal allowed. In the instant case, we are convinced, beyond doubt, that NICCO did not act bona fide in moving the Calcutta High Court and, therefore, the submission based on Section 21 must fail. While the spirit of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure may support such a submission, we are afraid, the discretion cannot be used in favour of a party which deliberately invokes the jurisdiction of a court which has no jurisdiction whatsoever for ulterior motives.
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court 2. Cause of Action 3. Interpretation of Article 226 of the Constitution 4. Application of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 5. Bona Fide Invocation of Jurisdiction Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court: The primary issue addressed was whether any part of the cause of action for filing the writ petition had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, thereby entitling it to entertain, hear, and decide the petition. The court noted that ONGC's decision to set up a Kerosene Recovery Processing Unit at Hazira in Gujarat and the subsequent processes, including tender scrutiny and final decision-making, took place outside the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The mere fact that NICCO read the advertisement in Calcutta, submitted its bid from Calcutta, and made representations from Calcutta did not constitute an integral part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. 2. Cause of Action: The court emphasized that the expression "cause of action" refers to the bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove to entitle him to a judgment in his favor. The court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration without embarking upon an inquiry as to the correctness of those facts. The court concluded that the averments made by NICCO in the writ petition did not disclose that any part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. 3. Interpretation of Article 226 of the Constitution: Article 226(1) empowers every High Court to issue directions, orders, or writs throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Article 226(2) allows the High Court to exercise its power if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its jurisdiction. The court clarified that NICCO must show that at least a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The court found that the facts pleaded by NICCO did not meet this requirement. 4. Application of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure: NICCO's counsel argued that even if the Calcutta High Court lacked jurisdiction, the court should not interfere with the High Court's decision in the absence of proof of prejudice, invoking the spirit of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the court held that this discretion could not be used in favor of a party that deliberately invoked the jurisdiction of a court without jurisdiction for ulterior motives. The court emphasized that Section 21 aims to avoid harassment to litigants who had bona fide commenced proceedings in a court later found to lack jurisdiction, which was not the case here. 5. Bona Fide Invocation of Jurisdiction: The court found that NICCO did not act bona fide in moving the Calcutta High Court. The court expressed concern over the tendency of the Calcutta High Court to assume jurisdiction on trivial grounds and emphasized the need to deprecate such practices to maintain the dignity and image of the judicial institution. The court concluded that NICCO's actions constituted an abuse of the court's jurisdiction. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the order of the Calcutta High Court was set aside, and the writ petition was disposed of for want of jurisdiction. NICCO was directed to pay Rs 50,000 as exemplary costs to ensure that such abuse of the court's jurisdiction does not occur in the future.
|
