9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 300 - HC - Money LaunderingTerritorial Jurisdiction of HC - Place of cause of action - Action under Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PMLA ) and COFEPOSA - Held that - the concept of forum conveniens has been recognised by the Courts and cause of action for determining territorial jurisdiction has been held to be a bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove to entitle him to a judgment in his favour. The petitioner had incorporated the companies in question in Mumbai; FIRs had been registered in Mumbai; investigations had been carried out in Mumbai; the initial information report under PMLA, 2002 being ECIR/65/MZO/2009 dated 30th October, 2009 was registered in Mumbai, pursuant to which the complaint, being PMLA Special Case No.01/2013, had been filed before Special Court, Mumbai, which is still pending adjudication in Mumbai. Consequently, it is not difficult for this Court to arrive at the conclusion that if not in whole, but at least the material and substantial cause of action had arisen in Mumbai. Petitioner s submission that since arrest order was issued in Delhi and subsequently, the petitioner was also arrested in Delhi constitutes a cause of action is misplaced. Cause of action , for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, for all intent and purport, must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It means a bundle of facts which are required to be proved. The entire bundle of facts pleaded, however, need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved is material facts whereupon a writ petition can be allowed. It is pertinent to mention that in the entire petition there is not even a whisper as to what cause of action in favour of the petitioner had accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court and why this Court should exercise jurisdiction. The petitioner, for reasons best known to himself, has even omitted the mandatory jurisdiction clause in the present petition. - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved
1. Jurisdiction of the Court 2. Cause of Action 3. Forum Conveniens 4. Quashing of PMLA Provisions and Proceedings Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Jurisdiction of the Court The primary issue was whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The respondent argued that no cause of action had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The Court confined its analysis to facts relevant to determining territorial jurisdiction. 2. Cause of Action The petitioner argued that substantial cause of action had arisen in Delhi, citing summons and arrest orders issued in Delhi. The Court examined the facts and found that the companies were incorporated in Mumbai, FIRs were registered in Mumbai, investigations were conducted in Mumbai, and the initial information report under PMLA was registered in Mumbai. Consequently, the Court concluded that the material and substantial cause of action had arisen in Mumbai. 3. Forum Conveniens The Court emphasized the principle of forum conveniens, which requires considering the convenience of all parties, existence of a more appropriate forum, expenses, and other ancillary aspects. The Court noted that the Special Court, Mumbai, was already handling the matter, and the petitioner had earlier submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Thus, the Bombay High Court was deemed better equipped to deal with the case. 4. Quashing of PMLA Provisions and Proceedings The petitioner sought to quash certain provisions of the PMLA and the proceedings initiated under it. The Court found that the facts relied upon by the petitioner had no relevance to the main issue of quashing the PMLA provisions and the complaint filed before the Special Court, Mumbai. The Court also clarified that proceedings under COFEPOSA and PMLA were independent and separate, and jurisdiction could not be conferred by drawing an analogy between the two. Conclusion The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, stating that no significant, material, or substantial part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. The Court also highlighted the principle of forum conveniens and granted liberty to the petitioner to file proceedings in an appropriate court with territorial jurisdiction, specifically the Bombay High Court.
|
