9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 443 - HC - CustomsTerritorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Arising a part of cause of action and in his submission material cause of action - Doctrine of forum non-conveniens - Rejection of an application seeking Advance Authorisation for those entities which would fall within the jurisdiction of DGFT Office Hyderabad - HELD THAT - It is relevant to note that the doctrine of forum non-conveniens had its origins in Scotland where the Court applied this doctrine as an extension to the plea of forum non-competens as the parties were not residents of Scotland as held in the case of Vernor vs. Elvies; 6 Disct. Of Dec. 4788 (1610). Thereafter it appears to have been adopted by the American Courts which developed it further and which was also applied by the Courts in England. Coming closer to home the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT recognised this doctrine and had in fact referred to some judgements rendered by the High Court of Calcutta to opine that 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 merits. In appropriate cases the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. Therefore the argument that this Court can entertain the writ petition since some part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi would not ipso facto confer jurisdiction on this Court if one were to apply the authoritative ratio above. Whether this Court would be compelled to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition? - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Goa 2023 (3) TMI 683 - SUPREME COURT was examining a case where the State of Goa had levied a tax in respect of lottery business being run by the respondent before it in Goa. However the respondent company was located in the State of Sikkim. Aggrieved by such levy the respondent company had filed a writ petition before the High Court at Sikkim. The Apex Court opined that the immediate civil consequence arising from the notification impugned therein was that tax @ 14% which was to be paid by the respondent company at Goa. No consequence or effect was felt in Sikkim. In fact it was noticed by the Hon ble Supreme Court that pleadings did not reflect any adverse consequence within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Sikkim. Conclusion - This Court would not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition nor would it be the forum conveniens to decide the lis. Petition dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Territorial Jurisdiction and Forum Conveniens Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court examined Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which allows High Courts to exercise jurisdiction if a part of the cause of action arises within their territorial limits. The Court also considered the doctrine of forum conveniens, which suggests that even if a part of the cause of action arises within a court's jurisdiction, the court may refuse to entertain the case if another forum is more appropriate. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that the doctrine of forum conveniens is applicable in determining whether to exercise jurisdiction. It referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which supports the application of this doctrine. Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the petitioner's registered office is in Hyderabad, and the relevant actions, including the rejection of the application and the issuance of the DGFT Notification, primarily affect the petitioner in Hyderabad. Application of law to facts: The Court determined that the mere issuance of a rejection letter from Delhi does not constitute a sufficient cause of action to confer jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court. The substantive actions and effects of the rejection and notification are centered in Hyderabad. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the issuance of the rejection letter from Delhi and the DGFT Notification provided sufficient grounds for jurisdiction in Delhi. The respondents countered that the primary actions and consequences occurred in Hyderabad, making it the more appropriate forum. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Delhi High Court does not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, as the primary cause of action and its effects are centered in Hyderabad. The doctrine of forum conveniens further supports this conclusion. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "Forum conveniens 30. We must, however, remind ourselves that 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. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens." Core principles established:
Final determinations on each issue:
|
