2007 (12) TMI 124 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the Principal Seat at Chennai has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India - it is clear that territorial jurisdiction of the Court & cause of action are inter-lined - to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction, it is necessary to find out the place where the cause of action arose since grievance of appellant arose at Chennai, as such Principal Bench has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter, not single judge

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat at Chennai to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Principal Seat at Chennai:

The primary issue before the court was whether the Principal Seat at Chennai had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant had challenged the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal-South Zone Bench, Chennai, which directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 20 Lakhs towards penalty as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal.

Presidential Notification and Jurisdiction:
The court examined the Presidential Notification dated 6.7.2004, which established a permanent bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai. The notification specified that the Madurai Bench would exercise jurisdiction over cases arising in specified districts, including Pudukottai, where the appellant's registered office was located. However, it also provided that the Chief Justice could, at his discretion, direct any case arising in these districts to be heard at Chennai.

Cause of Action and Legal Precedents:
The court analyzed several legal precedents to determine the meaning of "cause of action" and its relevance to territorial jurisdiction. In Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the Supreme Court held that if part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a particular bench, the litigant has the right to choose that forum. This principle was reiterated in U.P.R.C. Mill Adhikari Parishad vs. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court emphasized that the place where the cause of action arises determines territorial jurisdiction.

Application to the Present Case:
The court noted that the order impugned in the writ petition was issued by the Tribunal at Chennai. Therefore, the cause of action, or at least part of it, arose in Chennai. The court referred to Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India, which clarified that even a small fraction of the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of a court is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The court also cited Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India, which underscored that the infringement of a legal right within the territorial limits of the court's jurisdiction is crucial for maintaining a writ petition.

Conclusion:
Based on the legal precedents and the facts of the case, the court concluded that the Principal Seat at Chennai had the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The grievance of the appellant arose at Chennai, where the Tribunal's order was passed. Therefore, the Principal Bench was the appropriate forum to adjudicate the matter.

Judgment:
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge, and directed the writ petition to be numbered and placed before the learned single Judge for admission. The court emphasized that the Principal Seat at Chennai had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter, given that the cause of action arose in Chennai. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2007 was closed, and no costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →