2017 (4) TMI 307 - HC - Indian Laws

Place of convenience - Designated Court selection - alternative statutory remedy - Held that - The convenience of the parties are required to be considered. The convenience would include the existence of more appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for just adjudication of the controversy and such other ancillary aspects. The place of convenience is also required to be taken into consideration. It would be appropriate on the part of this Court to relegate the petitioners to appropriate Court at Maharashtra including the Court designated under the MPID Act, as may be advised, on the principle of forum conveniens without entering into the merits of the contentions raised in these petitions. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to raise all such contentions before such Court. For the aforesaid reasons, all these petitions are not entertained. Letters Patent Appeals are also disposed of by modifying the order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4689 of 2014 and allied matters to the extent of reserving liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate Court at Maharashtra including the court designated under the MPID Act, as may be advised. However, it is clarified that though the contentions of the parties are recorded in this judgment, no opinion is expressed on merits thereof since it may affect any of the parties before any other forum.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedy
3. Principle of Forum Conveniens

Detailed Analysis:

Territorial Jurisdiction:
The petitioners challenged the attachment of their properties situated in Gujarat under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act. The respondents argued that the Gujarat High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction since the cause of action arose in Maharashtra. However, the court held that part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction because the properties attached were situated in Gujarat. Therefore, the Gujarat High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the petitions.

Availability of Alternative Statutory Remedy:
The respondents contended that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy under the MPID Act, which provides for adjudication by a Designated Court and an appellate remedy to the High Court. The court noted that the Designated Court in Mumbai had issued notices to the petitioners, and the MPID Act provides a mechanism for lifting, modifying, or confirming the order of attachment. Given this statutory framework, the court decided that the petitions should not be entertained, as the petitioners had an adequate alternative remedy.

Principle of Forum Conveniens:
The respondents argued that the principle of forum conveniens should apply, suggesting that the Bombay High Court or the Designated Court in Mumbai was the more appropriate forum. The court considered several factors, including the location of NSEL, the place where contracts were executed, the filing of the FIR, and the ongoing proceedings in Mumbai courts. Given these considerations, the court found merit in the respondents' argument. It concluded that the convenience of the parties and the avoidance of inconsistent orders warranted that the matter be adjudicated in Maharashtra.

Conclusion:
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petitions and directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate court in Maharashtra, including the Designated Court under the MPID Act. The court emphasized that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, preserving the petitioners' liberty to raise all contentions before the appropriate forum. The ad-interim relief granted earlier was extended for three weeks to allow the petitioners to approach the higher forum.