9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the violation of natural justice due to lack of cross-examination and the question of territorial jurisdiction for filing a writ petition. Violation of Natural Justice: The Writ Petition challenged the Order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, alleging a violation of natural justice as the Petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the sole witness whose testimony led to adverse orders by the Special Director of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance. Territorial Jurisdiction for Writ Petition: A Preliminary Objection was raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction for filing the writ petition, with the Respondent arguing that the Bombay High Court should have jurisdiction since the Petitioner resides and conducts business there. The Petitioner, however, relied on the situs of the Appellate Tribunal in Delhi. The Court found the Preliminary Objection to be well-founded, emphasizing that the significant part of the cause of action should arise within the territorial sway of the chosen Court. Legal Precedents and Jurisdictional Clarifications: Various Division Benches of the Delhi High Court, along with legal precedents, clarified that the High Court should not exercise jurisdiction solely based on the location of the Tribunal within its boundaries. The Court highlighted the importance of the cause of action and the doctrine of forum conveniens in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for a writ petition. Applicability of FEMA and Supreme Court Ruling: Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 allows aggrieved parties to file appeals to the High Court, specifying the relevant jurisdiction based on residence or place of business. The Court cited a Supreme Court ruling in Ambica Industries case, emphasizing that the decision of one High Court is binding only within its jurisdiction, preventing forum shopping and judicial anarchy. Judgment and Conclusion: The Court rejected the Writ Petition on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate High Court for further proceedings. The decision was based on both general principles outlined in legal precedents and the specific provisions of Section 35 of FEMA.
|
