2020 (11) TMI 1012 - HC - Customs

Principle of forum conveniens - Territorial limits of jurisdiction - Appropriate forum to make Settlement Application - Petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad in the State of Telangana, aggrieved by the action taken against him by the Second Respondent, whose office is also situated at Hyderabad in the State of Telangana - Settlement application filed before before the First Respondent, viz., Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission Additional Bench, Chennai - seat of authority of First Respondent is stared to be situated at Chennai - HELD THAT - The reason stated by the Petitioner for having approached this Court instead of High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad 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 Telangana, this Court would also have territorial jurisdiction, the principle of forum conveniens would come into play as held by the decision of 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 . Having regard to the aforesaid legal position, there does not appear to be any justification to entertain the Writ Petitions for the relief sought in this Court. Though obvious, it is made clear that no view has been expressed by this Court on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of controversy involved in the matter. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the High Court over a case involving the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission Additional Bench, Chennai.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a resident of Hyderabad, challenged the action taken by the Second Respondent in Writ Petitions before the High Court of Madras. The petitioner argued that since the 'seat of authority' of the First Respondent is in Chennai, within the territorial limits of the Madras High Court, this court should have jurisdiction. The principle of forum conveniens was invoked, emphasizing the importance of the place where the cause of action arises. The court cited various legal precedents to establish that territorial jurisdiction is linked to the place of accrual of the cause of action. It was highlighted that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, it may not be a determinative factor for the court to decide the matter on merit. The court clarified that lack of jurisdiction to entertain a matter renders any action or orders passed null and void, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional boundaries.

The court, after considering the legal position and precedents cited, found no justification to entertain the Writ Petitions for the relief sought. It was explicitly stated that the court did not express any view on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter. Consequently, the Writ Petitions were dismissed with the clarification provided, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed without any costs being awarded.