2020 (11) TMI 976 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of petition - Territorial Jurisdiction - Petitioner approached this Court instead of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore - Principle of forum conveniens - HELD THAT - The reason stated by the Petitioner for having approached this Court instead of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore is that the 'seat of authority' of the First Respondent is situated at Chennai within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of this Court. Even if it is assumed that in addition to the High Court of Karnataka, this Court would also have territorial jurisdiction, the principle of forum conveniens would come into play as held by the Division Bench of this Court in C. RAMESH VERSUS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, 2013 (6) TMI 888 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . There does not appear to be any justification to entertain the Writ Petition for the relief sought in this Court - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdictional challenge based on the seat of authority of the First Respondent.

Analysis:
The Petitioner, a partnership firm in Bangalore, challenged the action taken by the Second Respondent by filing an application before the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission Additional Bench. The Petitioner approached the Madras High Court instead of the High Court of Karnataka, citing the 'seat of authority' of the First Respondent in Chennai. The principle of forum conveniens was invoked, emphasizing that the territorial jurisdiction of the Court is linked with the place of accrual of cause of action. The Court referred to various precedents highlighting the importance of substantial cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction. The Court clarified that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the High Court's territorial limits, it may not be determinative, and the Court can refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction based on the Doctrine of forum conveniens.

The Court emphasized that the question of entertaining a case is based on the averments disclosing a cause of action, without delving into the truth of the averments at that stage. It reiterated that a Court cannot assume jurisdiction it does not possess, as lack of jurisdiction renders any action or orders null and void. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that there was no justification to entertain it in light of the legal position discussed. It clarified that its decision did not express any view on the merits of the case. The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed without costs.