2015 (7) TMI 750 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction of Court - Court in previous judgment held that This court has no jurisdiction to entertain these appeals - Held that - The original Article 226 of the Constitution of India came up for consideration before the Supreme Court of India in ELECTION COMMISSION INDIA vs SAKA VENKATA RAO 1953 (2) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT . It was held that the location of the respondent would give territorial jurisdiction to the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The situs of the cause of action was held to be material for this purpose. The Constitution (15th Amendment) Act 1963 brought clause (1A) to provide that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises fully or partly would also have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The result of the amendment is that the accrual of cause of action is made an additional ground to confer jurisdiction to a High Court under the said Article. With the insertion of clause (1A) no new jurisdiction was conferred on the High Court but it provided an additional ground and extended the jurisdiction beyond the boundaries of the State if the cause of action arose within its territory. The consignments were received by the writ petitioner at Delhi air cargo complex. They were cleared by the authorities at Delhi after obtaining clarification from the Board of Customs. The consignments were cleared for home consumption upon acceptance of the duties as mentioned in the said notification without any demur. The writ petitioner dispatched those gold dore bars to Uttarakhand. The shipments were refined and the refined gold bars were brought back from Uttarakhand to Bengaluru for sale and manufacture of gold jewellery. - The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked if even a fraction of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. Against the aforesaid background it is difficult to uphold the view taken by the Hon ble Judge that this court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 - Cause of action within territorial limits.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a writ petitioner challenging a judgment dismissing their writ petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The writ petitioner, engaged in gold jewelry manufacturing and exporting, imported gold dore bars at Delhi Port under an exemption notification. The Central Government authorized exemptions under specific conditions. The writ petitioner fulfilled conditions under serial number 318 of the notification for importing gold dore bars. The Commissioner of Customs sought clarification on the import, and the writ petitioner submitted relevant documents for clearance. Subsequently, the Commissioner issued notices demanding past import documentation, leading to the writ petition being filed fearing coercive actions.

The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 was the primary issue. The Single Judge's dismissal was based on the lack of territorial cause of action within Karnataka. The appeal cited legal precedents emphasizing that even a fraction of the cause of action within the High Court's jurisdiction is sufficient to invoke Article 226. The Supreme Court rulings highlighted the importance of the situs of the cause of action for determining jurisdiction. The appeal argued that the consignments' receipt and subsequent actions in Bengaluru constituted part of the cause of action falling within Karnataka's jurisdiction, contrary to the Single Judge's ruling.

The appeal criticized the reliance on a previous case that did not consider the specific clause of Article 226 regarding territorial jurisdiction. Ultimately, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment, restoring the writ petition for further consideration by a judge with appropriate jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed without costs, emphasizing the importance of territorial cause of action in determining the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the crucial issue of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing the need for even a fraction of the cause of action to fall within the High Court's territorial limits. The legal analysis provided a comprehensive overview of relevant precedents and highlighted the significance of the situs of the cause of action in determining jurisdiction for writ petitions.