2018 (9) TMI 2084 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - Jurisdiction - appropriate forum - Disaffiliation of the petitioner's Association by the respondent No. 2 - affiliation granted to respondent No. 3 - HELD THAT - The reading of the Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye-Laws discloses that the Suits/Legal actions against the respondent No. 2 i.e. Federation shall be instituted only in the courts at Chennai where the Registered Office of the respondent No. 2 is situated. Hence a body which is affiliated to the respondent No. 2 subscribes to the said Clause 21 and thereby admits to the ouster of jurisdiction of all courts except the courts at Chennai - thus, there are substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 2 as regards territorial jurisdiction to entertain the above writ petition. In the facts of the present case when there is existence of Clause 21 which have been adverted to herein, the jurisdiction of the other courts except the courts at Chennai in respect of any suits/Legal action which are brought against the respondent No. 2 are ousted. Though the reliefs have also been sought against the respondent No. 2 the same would also not confer jurisdiction as the reliefs against the respondent No. 3 can be said to be incidental reliefs to the reliefs which are stated in the earlier part of this order. Hence the writ petition are not entertained on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. However, the petitioner are permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts at Chennai for the reliefs sought. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional challenge regarding maintainability of the writ petition in Bombay High Court.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed seeking direction to withdraw a Show Cause Notice and challenging certain Resolutions passed by the Central Council of a Federation. The main issue was the disaffiliation of the petitioner's Association by the Federation and the affiliation granted to another association. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition in Bombay High Court based on Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye-Laws of the Federation. This clause stated that legal actions against the Federation should be instituted only in the courts at Chennai, where the Registered Office of the Federation is situated. The Court found substance in this objection, agreeing that the jurisdiction of other courts except Chennai was ousted in this matter.

The petitioner tried to rely on a judgment of the Apex Court, but the High Court distinguished it, stating that the jurisdiction of other courts was ousted due to the existence of Clause 21. The Court declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction but allowed the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts at Chennai for the reliefs sought. The Court emphasized that the contentions of the parties on the merits of the challenge were kept open to be argued before the Appropriate Court. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of in accordance with the jurisdictional findings.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the jurisdictional challenge raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in Bombay High Court due to the specific clause in the Federation's Bye-Laws. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue the matter in the courts at Chennai as per the legal provisions, while leaving the merits of the challenge open to be argued in the appropriate forum.