2023 (7) TMI 1553 - HC - Customs

Doctrine of forum conveniens - Jurisdiction of Madras High Court to entertain a writ petition filed by the petitioner who participated in an e-auction from Chennai - HELD THAT - No part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court at Chennai. Merely because the petitioner is located in Chennai and participated in the E-auction from Chennai and made payments from Chennai the Court will not entitled the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The Court will be guided by the doctrine of forum conveniens has recognized by the Hon ble Supreme Court in KUSUM INGOTS ALLOYS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT . The doctrine is being followed universally by all the Courts in the Courts. The party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the high court to decide the dispute and that at least a part of the cause of action to move the high court arose within its jurisdiction. Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted. In this case the Officers of the respondents are located in Vishakapatnam and in Nellore both within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Any clarification will have to be furnished only by these Officers from Andhra Pradesh of the respondents herein. Merely because the first respondent also has an office in Chennai Ipso facto would not entitle to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered in this judgment is whether the Madras High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition filed by the petitioner, who participated in an e-auction from Chennai and made payments from Chennai, despite the fact that the respondents are located in Andhra Pradesh and the subject matter of the dispute is also situated there.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The primary legal framework involved in this case is Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which pertains to the jurisdiction of High Courts to issue certain writs. The doctrine of "forum conveniens" and the concept of "cause of action" are central to determining jurisdiction. The Court refers to the precedent set in Kusum Ingots vs. Union of India, which elaborates on the interpretation of "cause of action" and its application in determining the jurisdiction of High Courts.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Court interprets the doctrine of "forum conveniens" to mean that jurisdiction is not merely determined by the location of the petitioner or where certain actions, such as payments, were made. Instead, it requires that a substantial part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The Court emphasizes that the material facts constituting the cause of action must have a significant connection to the jurisdiction where the writ is filed.

Key Evidence and Findings

The petitioner participated in an e-auction conducted by the first respondent in Vishakhapatnam and made payments from Chennai. The goods were delivered to another party, leading the petitioner to file a complaint. The respondents are located in Andhra Pradesh, and any necessary clarifications would need to be addressed by officers located there. The Court finds that no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai, despite the petitioner's participation from there.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court applies the principles from Kusum Ingots vs. Union of India and The State of Goa vs. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd. to the facts of the case. It concludes that the petitioner's actions in Chennai do not constitute a sufficient cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The location of the respondents and the subject matter in Andhra Pradesh are pivotal in determining the appropriate jurisdiction.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The petitioner argued for jurisdiction based on their location and the place of payment. The respondents countered that no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai. The Court sided with the respondents, emphasizing the necessity for a substantial connection between the cause of action and the jurisdiction where the writ is filed.

Conclusions

The Court concludes that the Madras High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner is advised to file the petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, where the respondents and the subject matter are located.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court holds that the doctrine of "forum conveniens" and the concept of "cause of action" are crucial in determining the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. The Court reiterates the principle that jurisdiction is not determined solely by the location of the petitioner or the place of certain actions but by the substantial connection of the cause of action to the jurisdiction.

Core Principles Established

The judgment reinforces the interpretation of "cause of action" as requiring a material, essential, or integral connection to the jurisdiction where the writ is filed. The Court emphasizes that facts not relevant or germane to the grant of the prayer do not confer jurisdiction.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The writ petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner is granted liberty to file the writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, where the appropriate jurisdiction lies.