9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners added the prayer challenging such cancellation order also. 2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows. The petitioner No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing detergent cakes, detergent powder etc. For the purpose of its manufacturing activity, the petitioners purchased through their agents, three DEPB licences issued by the authorities under the Director General of Foreign Trade in favour of one M/s. Yash Exports. Alongwith covering letter dated 12-3-1999 issued by the Foreign Trade Development Officer, the said Yash Exports was issued DEPB licence for a duty credit of Rs.8,04,038/-. The licence was transferable. It is this licence that the petitioners purchased on or around 20-3-1999. The authorities also endorsed such licence in favour of the petitioners as is apparent from page 17 of the compilation which is part of Annexure A to the petition. The petitioners during the same period purchased two more licences issued in favour of M/s. Yash Exports of the identical amount of Rs.8,04,038/-. 3. With the aid of these licences, when the petitioners imported certain goods needed for their manufacturing act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against respondent No.3 who has his office at Varanasi . There are no averments in the petition that any action was taken within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The counsel, therefore, submitted that the petition should be dismissed only on this preliminary ground. 7. With respect to such contention of the respondents regarding territorial jurisdiction, the counsel for the petitioners relied on the averments made in the petition which were brought on record through amendment wherein it is stated that: "8. The Petitioner Company's registered office is situated in the state of Gujarat . Copies of the TRAs of the three DEPB licenses were received by the Petitioner company at Ahmedabad. The effect and impact of the impugned action on the part of respondent No.3 in denying to issue fresh transfer release advices is felt by the petitioner company at Ahmedabad. Thus, a substantial part of the cause of action has arisen at Ahmedabad The respondent No.6 has summoned the Petitioner company at Ahmedabad for enquiry with regard to the subject DEPB licenses. This Hon'ble Court has, therefore, jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of this petition." 8. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me other goods at Kandla Port utilising such credits, when the petition was filed, no such imports were made and the entire issue pertains to the action of the Customs authorities not allowing the petitioners to import the goods which had landed at Mumbai. 12. If we see the list of respondents joined by the petitioners in this petition, they are all authorities having their locations at different places outside Gujarat except respondent No.6. The other authorities are stationed at New Delhi , Mumbai, Varanasi etc. Only respondent No.6 - Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has his office in Ahmedabad. This respondent, the petitioners have joined perhaps on the ground that this authority had issued a summons to the petitioner to record the statements in connection with DRI investigation regarding the alleged bogus exports. 13. In our view, no part of the cause of action can be stated to have arisen within the local limits of this court. To reiterate, the DEPB licences were issued in favour of M/s. Yash Exports at Varanasi. The port of export was shown at Varanasi . The licences were issued by Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi . Such licences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the Corporation did not deliver the goods, the petitioner approached for necessary relief before the High Court of Calcutta. The petitioners tried to establish the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court on the premise that it carries on business at Calcutta and the replies by mills to correspondence issued by the petitioners was received at Calcutta . The Apex Court held that such facts were not integral part of the cause of action and, therefore, the High Court at Calcutta had no territorial jurisdiction. The court observed as under:- "10. Under Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is empowered to issue writs, orders or directions to any Government, authority or person exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. Cause of action as understood in the civil proceedings means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
