9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant-company cannot be said to be essential, integral or material facts so as to constitute a part of ‘cause of action’ within the meaning of article 226(2) of the Constitution. The High Court therefore, was not wrong in dismissing the petition. For the foregoing reasons no infirmity in the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany, therefore, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the letter-cum-order dated 23-2-2006. 4. The High Court dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The High Court did not enter into merits of the matter and granted liberty to the Appellant-Company to seek appropriate remedy before an appropriate Court. 5. The said decision of the High Court is challenged by the Appellant-Company in this appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Appellant-Company contended that a part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The Appellant-Company, for such submission, relied on the following facts : (i)The Appellant-Company has its Registered and Corporate Office at Chandigarh; (ii)The Appellant-Company carries on business at Chandigarh; (iii)The offer of the Appellant-Company was accepted on 20-2-2004 and the acceptance was communicated to it at Chandigarh; (iv)P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-2004 from Gangtok. 10. The respondents, therefore, submitted that the High Court was wholly right in dismissing the petition on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction and the order needs no interference by this Court. 11. Before entering into the controversy in the present appeal, let the legal position be examined : Article 226 of the Constitution as it originally enacted had two-fold limitations on the jurisdiction of High Courts with regard to their territorial jurisdiction. Firstly, the power could be exercised by the High Court "throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction", i.e. the writs issued by the court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. Secondly, the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be "within those territories", which clearly implied that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories. 12. In Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao AIR 1953 SC 210, the petitioner applied to the High Court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of prohibition restraining the Election Commission, (a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rritories' in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction". 16. Again, a question arose in Khajoor Singh v. Union of India AIR 1961 SC 532. A Bench of seven Judges was called upon to consider the correctness or otherwise of Saka Venkata Rao. The majority (Sinha, C.J., Kapoor, Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo, Das Gupta and Shah, JJ.) reaffirmed and approved the view taken by this Court earlier in Saka Venkata Rao and held that the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir was right in not entertaining the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction. 17. Speaking for the majority, Sinha, C.J., stated : "... It seems to us therefore that it is not permissible to read in article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court. That jurisdiction depends on the person or authority passing the order being within those territories and the residence or location of the person affected can have no relevance on the question of the High Court's jurisdiction. . . ." (p. 538) 18. The effect of the above decisions was that no High Court other than the High Court of Punjab ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also be vested with such jurisdiction." 21. The legislative history of the constitutional provisions, therefore, make it clear that after 1963, cause of action is relevant and germane and a writ petition can be instituted in a High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which cause of action in whole or in part arises. 22. The question for our consideration is as to whether the assertion of the appellant is well-founded that a part of cause of action can be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Whereas, the appellant-company submits that a part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court, the respondents contend otherwise. 23. It may be stated that the expression 'cause of action' has neither been defined in the Constitution nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It may, however, be described as a bundle of essential facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed. Failure to prove such facts would give the defendant a right to judgment in his favour. Cause of action thus gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. 24. The classic definition of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be said to be material, integral or essential part of the lis between the parties. If it is, it forms a part of cause of action. If it is not, it does not form a part of cause of action. It is also well-settled that in determining the question, the substance of the matter and not the form thereof has to be considered. 29. In Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. AIR 1984 SC 1264, the registered office of the Company was situated at Ludhiana, but a petition was filed in the High Court of Calcutta on the ground that the Company had its branch office there. The order was challenged by the Union of India. And this Court held that since the registered office of the Company was at Ludhiana and the principal respondents against whom primary relief was sought were at New Delhi, one would have expected the writ petitioner to approach either the High Court of Punjab & Haryana or the High Court of Delhi. The forum chosen by the writ petitioners could not be said to be in accordance with law and the High Court of Calcutta could not have entertained the writ petition. 30. In State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties AIR 1985 SC 1289, the Company whose registered office was at Calcutta fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies at Chennai. None of the respondents was stationed within the State of Gujarat. It was, therefore, contended that Gujarat High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The contention, however, was negatived and the petition was allowed. The respondents approached the Supreme Court. 35. The judgment of the High Court was sought to be supported inter alia on the grounds; that (i) A was carrying on business at Ahmedabad; (ii) orders were placed from and executed at Ahmedabad; (iii) documents were sent and payment was made at Ahmedabad; (iv) credit of duty was claimed for export handled from Ahmedabad; (v) denial of benefit adversely affected the petitioner at Ahmedabad; (vi) A had furnished bank guarantee and executed a bond at Ahmedabad, etc. 36. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that none of the facts pleaded by A constituted a cause of action. "Facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned". 37. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [2004] 6 SCC 254 the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
