9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1390 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of petition - territorial jurisdiction to examine the present petition - infringement of legal rights or not - HELD THAT - Hon ble Apex Court under identical circumstances in RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU VERSUS RK. MISHRA ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2009 (11) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT while examining as to whether receipt of communication or location of the office would cloth such High Court the jurisdiction to examine the writ petition on merits has held in the ease of OIL NATURAL GAS COMMISSION VERSUS UTPAL KUMAR BASU 1994 (6) TMI 193 - SUPREME COURT that mere location of the Registered office or receipt of communication would not give rise for cause of action. Hence this Court is of the considered view that present writ petition before this Court would not be maintainable since no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The consignment belonging to the petitioner has been received at Delhi from Australia and on same being cleared at Air Cargo Complex Delhi petitioner has taken delivery of the said consignment at Delhi and transported it to Uttarakhand. As such no part of the cause of action either wholly or in part has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court so as to enable this Court to examine as to whether the petitioner s alleged legal right had been infringed - the irresistible conclusion that will have to be drawn by this Court is this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to examine the writ petition on merits since no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petition is hereby dismissed as not maintainable before this Court.
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court 2. Maintainability of the Writ Petition Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court: The primary issue addressed in the judgment is whether the Karnataka High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The Division Bench had previously directed that the objections regarding territorial jurisdiction should be decided as a preliminary issue. Factual Matrix: The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture and export of gold jewellery, imported Gold Dore Bars at Delhi Port under a specific notification. The petitioner contended that the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court since their registered and corporate offices are located in Bangalore, and the business operations, including import and export, are conducted from Bangalore. Contentions: - Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable before the Karnataka High Court because the impugned communication was addressed to their Bangalore office, and part of the cause of action (including business operations and receipt of communication) occurred in Bangalore. - Respondent: The respondent contended that the entire cause of action arose in New Delhi, where the importation and clearance of goods took place, and therefore, the Karnataka High Court lacks jurisdiction. Legal Framework: The Court examined Article 226(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India. Article 226(2) allows a High Court to exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territory. The Court referred to several judgments, including Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Another, which clarified that even a small fraction of the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction is sufficient for the High Court to entertain the petition. Findings: The Court found that the importation, clearance, and delivery of the consignment occurred entirely in New Delhi and Uttarakhand, with no part of the cause of action arising in Karnataka. The mere location of the registered office or receipt of communication in Bangalore does not constitute a sufficient cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court. Conclusion: The Court concluded that it does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed on this ground. 2. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The maintainability of the writ petition was contingent upon the determination of territorial jurisdiction. Since the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction, the writ petition was deemed not maintainable before the Karnataka High Court. Order: 1. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable before the Karnataka High Court. 2. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the claim made in the writ petition, and the merits were kept open for consideration by the appropriate court. 3. Costs were made easy. Summary: The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the cause of action arose entirely in New Delhi and Uttarakhand, not in Karnataka. The Court emphasized that the location of the petitioner's registered office in Bangalore and the receipt of communication there did not confer jurisdiction. The merits of the case were left open for consideration by the appropriate court.
|
