2007 (9) TMI 690 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of Writ Petition - Doctrine of forum conveniens - Territorial limits of jurisdiction - cause of action arises - Whether the writ Petition challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) which is situate within the territorial limits of this Court while the original Tribunal is situate in another State is maintainable - notice to the petitioner u/s 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 ( sarfaesi Act ) r/w Rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 - HELD THAT - The Division Bench in Bhanu Constructions case 2000 (11) TMI 1141 - SUPREME COURT held that the High Court would have no power of superintendence if as a result of intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India an order of a tribunal over which the High Court has no power of superintendence is subject to scrutiny and that then the High court would refuse to entertain the request since it would amount to interfering and usurping the power of the other High court and that in that case the seat of authority must be deemed to be in hyderabad. This is really contrary to the judgment in Kusum Ingots case 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT . Even in Bhanu Constructions case the Division Bench has held that after the 15th amendment of the Constitution introducing Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India the legal position is that a Writ can be issued by a high Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises irrespective of the seat of authority. Therefore even assuming that by a fiction the seat of Appellate Authority in this case should be deemed to be in Hyderabad logically that alone is not the criterion and the High Court within whose jurisdiction cause of action arises can definitely issue a Writ. In this case the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal by which the petitioner is aggrieved is most certainly a cause of action . The decision in Bhanu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. s case as regards maintainability is not correct. The order of reference is answered accordingly. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Maintainability of Writ Petition
2. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226
3. Doctrine of Forum Convenience
4. Effect of Appellate Tribunal's Location

Detailed Analysis

1. Maintainability of Writ Petition
The primary issue addressed was whether a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (D.R.A.T.) is maintainable in the Madras High Court when the original Tribunal is situated in another state. The judgment examined the decision in Bhanu Constructions Pvt. Ltd v. Andhra Bank, which held that the Madras High Court had no jurisdiction over the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad even though the Appellate Tribunal was located in Chennai.

2. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226
The court analyzed Article 226(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India, which grants High Courts the power to issue writs. It was emphasized that jurisdiction is determined by where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part. The judgment cited Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which clarified that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, it has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

3. Doctrine of Forum Convenience
The judgment highlighted the Doctrine of Forum Convenience, which allows a High Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if it is not the convenient forum for the case. This principle was discussed in the context of the Kusum Ingots case, where it was stated that even if a High Court has jurisdiction, it may choose not to exercise it based on convenience.

4. Effect of Appellate Tribunal's Location
The court examined whether the location of the Appellate Tribunal affects the jurisdiction of High Courts. It was concluded that the Appellate Tribunal's location within the territorial limits of the Madras High Court does confer jurisdiction to scrutinize the order passed by such Tribunal. The court referred to Article 226(2) of the Constitution, which allows High Courts to issue writs if the cause of action arises within their jurisdiction, regardless of the location of the authority.

Conclusion
The judgment concluded that the decision in Bhanu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Andhra Bank was incorrect regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The Madras High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal located in Chennai. The court emphasized that the cause of action, which includes the order of the Appellate Tribunal, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The doctrine of forum convenience may still apply, allowing the court to refuse jurisdiction based on convenience, but this does not negate its inherent jurisdiction.