9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 459 - HC - Central ExciseDoctrine of merger - Forum shopping - Jurisdiction - appropriate forum - requirement to file writ petitions before the High Courts within whose jurisdiction the original adjudication orders were passed - It is respondents contention that petitioners should file writ petitions challenging the orders of the Revisionary Authority before the Madras High Court, Karnataka High Court, Goa Bench of this Court or the Nagpur Bench of this Court. HELD THAT - The decision of the Four Judge Bench in Sri Nasiruddin 1975 (8) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT directly applies to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. The question in Sri Nasiruddin (Supra) was whether a writ against an appellate order would lie before the Lucknow Bench or the Allahabad Bench of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in cases where the original lis arose in Allahabad but the seat of the appellate forum was in Lucknow - The Court held that if the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas in Oudh it will be open to the litigant, who is the dominus litis, to have his forum conveniens. The litigant has the right to go to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. In such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular Court. The choice is by reason of the jurisdiction of the Court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. This has been reiterated in Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held keeping in view the expressions used in Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the High Court, the High Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. However, even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. Therefore, since the Revisionary Authority is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court, petitioner has the option to file the petitions here or before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the original adjudication occurred. Petitioners have the right to file the petitions before the Principal Seat of this Court. Hence, on this ground alone, the present petitions are maintainable before the Principal Seat of this Court. Prior to the amendment of Article 226 and the insertion of Article 226 (2), the Hon ble Supreme Court has specifically held that on account of the principle of the doctrine of merger, a writ against an order of the Appellate Authority, would lie only before the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Appellate Authority is located. This principle would continue to hold the field today. Vide the insertion of Article 226 (2), jurisdiction was bestowed upon the High Courts to issue writs to authorities located outside their territorial jurisdiction as long as the cause of action arose within their territorial jurisdiction - this would not in any way denude the powers of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Appellate Authority is located to issue writs. The fact remains that the appellate order is a significant part of the cause of action for petitioner. The present petitions are maintainable before the Principal Seat of this High Court since the orders of the adjudicating authorities have merged into the impugned orders of the Revisionary Authority who is located in Mumbai. This Court has jurisdiction in the present petitions - the petitions stand adjourned to 6th September 2024 for consideration on merits.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petitions before the Bombay High Court. 2. Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the petitions based on the location of the Revisionary Authority. 3. Application of the doctrine of forum conveniens. 4. Doctrine of merger in the context of appellate and original orders. 5. Right of the petitioner to choose the forum based on the cause of action. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Petitions Before the Bombay High Court: The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions, asserting that they should be filed in the High Courts within whose jurisdiction the original adjudication orders were passed. The court found this objection unsustainable and decided to address the limited question of jurisdiction, without delving into the merits of the disputes. 2. Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to Entertain the Petitions: The court noted that the Revisionary Authority, whose orders were challenged, is located within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The petitioners argued that since the Revisionary Authority's office is within the jurisdiction of this court, the entire cause of action arises here. The court supported this view, emphasizing that the Revisionary Authority's location within Mumbai grants jurisdiction to the Bombay High Court. 3. Application of the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens: The respondents contended that the petitions should be filed in the High Courts where the original adjudicating authorities are located, invoking the principle of forum conveniens. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the Revisionary Authority's order constitutes a significant part of the cause of action, making the Bombay High Court a suitable forum. The court referenced Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. and Sterling Agro Industries Ltd., highlighting that the doctrine of forum conveniens does not apply when a significant part of the cause of action arises within the court's jurisdiction. 4. Doctrine of Merger in the Context of Appellate and Original Orders: The court reiterated the principle of the doctrine of merger, which states that once an appeal is decided by an appellate authority, the original order merges with the appellate order. This doctrine implies that the appellate order becomes the operative order and is amenable to challenge. The court cited East India Commercial Co. Ltd. to support this principle, emphasizing that the appellate order forms a significant part of the cause of action. 5. Right of the Petitioner to Choose the Forum Based on the Cause of Action: The court upheld the petitioners' right to choose the forum based on where a significant part of the cause of action arises. It referenced Sri Nasiruddin and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd., which established that if part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court, the petitioner has the right to file the petition in that court. The court concluded that since the Revisionary Authority's order is a significant part of the cause of action, the petitions are maintainable before the Bombay High Court. Conclusion: The Bombay High Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the petitions, as the Revisionary Authority's order constitutes a significant part of the cause of action. The court rejected the respondents' arguments based on forum conveniens and the location of the original adjudicating authorities. The petitions were adjourned for consideration on merits.
|
