9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 1074 - HC - Indian LawsDirection to appellant to allow him to join duty as Professor (Management) - HELD THAT - The conclusion is irresistible, that the principles laid down in SELVIN ABRAHAM VERSUS PUNJAB SIND BANK 2013 (6) TMI 928 - KERALA HIGH COURT are contrary, not only to the Full Bench judgment in NAIK NAKUL DEO SINGH VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT, C.I.S.F. AND ORS. 1999 (8) TMI 1022 - KERALA HIGH COURT but also to the Apex Court judgments referred to. As a result, Selvin Abraham does not laid down good law and therefore, is overruled. There are no averment in the writ petitions where the petitioners have raised any plea as to how the Kerala High Court has territorial jurisdiction over the cause of action which led them to file the writ petitions. Instead, counsel wanted us to infer from the above pleading that an integral part the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, if the facts which noticed above are evaluated in the light of the law laid down in Nakul Deo Singh and the Apex Court judgments, the only conclusion that is possible is that no part of the cause of action, much less any integral part of the cause of action, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court justifying the entertainment of these writ petitions. The Division Bench judgment in Selvin Abraham v. Punjab Sind Bank is overruled - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition in Kerala High Court due to territorial jurisdiction. 2. Conflict between judgments in Selvin Abraham v. Punjab & Sind Bank and Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commissioner. 3. Examination of whether the communication of dismissal and appellate orders constitutes a part of the cause of action. 4. Analysis of the Full Bench judgment in Nakul Deo Singh and its approval or disapproval of Kunhabdulla v. Union of India. 5. Examination of the Supreme Court's stance on territorial jurisdiction in various judgments. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the writ petition in Kerala High Court due to territorial jurisdiction: The appellant objected to the maintainability of the writ petition in Kerala High Court, arguing that the entire cause of action arose in Chennai. The Kerala High Court initially overruled this objection, but the decision was challenged, leading to the writ appeal being referred to a Full Bench. 2. Conflict between judgments in Selvin Abraham v. Punjab & Sind Bank and Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commissioner: The Division Bench noted a conflict between the principles laid down in Selvin Abraham and Nakul Deo Singh. Selvin Abraham held that the service of a dismissal order forms an integral part of the cause of action, allowing the writ petition to be filed in Kerala. However, Nakul Deo Singh established that receipt of communication does not constitute a part of the cause of action, and the cause of action arises where the order is issued, not where it is received. 3. Examination of whether the communication of dismissal and appellate orders constitutes a part of the cause of action: The Full Bench examined whether the communication of dismissal and appellate orders constitutes a part of the cause of action. The judgment in Nakul Deo Singh clarified that the cause of action arises when the appellate authority issues an order, not when it is communicated. This principle was upheld by the Supreme Court in various judgments, including Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India. 4. Analysis of the Full Bench judgment in Nakul Deo Singh and its approval or disapproval of Kunhabdulla v. Union of India: The Full Bench in Nakul Deo Singh disapproved the principles laid down in Kunhabdulla, which held that the cause of action arises where the order is communicated. The Full Bench approved the principles in Thomaskutty v. Union of India, which held that the cause of action arises where the order is issued. The Full Bench judgment was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court in Mosaraf Hossain Khan. 5. Examination of the Supreme Court's stance on territorial jurisdiction in various judgments: The Supreme Court's judgments in Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd., and National Textiles Corp. Ltd. v. Haribox Swalram consistently held that the cause of action arises where the order is issued, not where it is communicated. The Supreme Court emphasized that the receipt of communication only gives the right of action, not the cause of action. The principle of forum conveniens was also highlighted, allowing courts to refuse jurisdiction even if a small part of the cause of action arises within their territory. Conclusion: The Full Bench overruled the judgment in Selvin Abraham, holding that it did not lay down good law. The writ petitions were dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, and the judgment clarified that the petitioners could seek remedies before the appropriate court. The principles laid down in Nakul Deo Singh and approved by the Supreme Court were reaffirmed, establishing that the cause of action arises where the order is issued, not where it is communicated.
|
