9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New Delhi. It is also stated that in the export questionnaire, the petitioner had given its address for communication at New Delhi. Moreover, the appellate authority is also in Delhi. Taking into consideration the principles enunciated in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) Alchemist Ltd and Another v. State Bank of Sikkim and Others [2007 (3) TMI 382 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and (ii) Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Another [2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], this Court is of the view that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. - writ petition dismissed. - Writ Petition Nos. 29672-29674 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2012 - P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. Shri Naresh Thacker for Karthick Sundaram, for the Petitioner. Shri M. Raveendran, Addl. Solicitor General for P. Mahadevan, S.C.C.G., K. Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, Vijay Narain, Senior Counsel and T. Ramesh, for the Respondent. ORDER Since all the writ petitions arise out of common issue, they are taken up together for final disposal. 2. The br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. The second respondent directed the petitioner to file written submissions within 5 working days. The petitioner s Advocate filed written submission on 5-9-2011 submitting that three grades of subject goods should not be a part of Anti-dumping investigation. The petitioner s Advocate thereafter filed detailed written submissions on 9-9-2011 in support of their contention that the said three grades should not form part of the Anti-dumping investigation. The petitioner s Advocates by their letter dated 20-9-2011 filed their Rejoinder to the Domestic Industry s written submissions. On 8-11-2011, the disclosure statement was issued by the second respondent, two months after the public hearing stating that the submissions on exclusions were placed belatedly in the investigation and hence the issue of the goods exported by Outokompu being like articles was not considered. On 11-11-2011, comments were filed by the petitioner to disclosure statement stating that non-consideration of submission of exclusion of grades raised by the petitioner was improper. However, on 14-11-2011, impugned final findings recommending the levy of Anti-dumping duty was passed, wherein, the recommendation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y did not arise as there is no domestic industry in existence. It is further submitted that before issuing any final finding notification, it is mandatory for the second respondent to ensure if a domestic industry producing the like articles is in existence. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when a specific plea was raised, the same was not considered, hence, the final finding notification passed by the second respondent is only in violation of principles of natural justice. He further contended that the second respondent ought to have given reason for arriving at such conclusion showing proper application of mind. He further contended that the writ petition is maintainable and this Court also entertained writ petitions against the final finding notification. He further submitted that cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and in these circumstances, he prayed for setting aside the Final Finding Notification passed by the second respondent and allowing the writ petitions. 4. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations stated in the writ petitions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26 of the Constitution of India, it is necessary to understand the term cause of action . However, the term cause of action has not been defined in the Constitution of India nor in Civil Procedure Code. In the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Another, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 = 2004 (168) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the Supreme Court considered the scope of expression cause of action and in paragraph 6, it is held as follows :- 6. Cause of Action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitutes the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of this Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person is not within those territories. 16. It may be stated that by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, Clause (1-A) was renumbered as Clause (2). The underlying object of amendment was expressed in the following words : Under the existing Article 226 of the Constitution, the only High Court which has jurisdiction with respect to the Central Government is the Punjab High Court. This involves considerable hardship to litigants from distant places. It is, therefore, proposed to amend Article 226 so that when any relief is sought against any Government, authority or person for any action taken, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises may also have jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions, orders or writs. (emphasis supplied) The effect of the amendment was that the accrual of cause of action was made an additional ground to confer jurisdiction on a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 17. As Joint Committee observed. This clause would enable the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person, notwi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany on 23-0-2004 from Gangtok. 8. The Supreme Court after considering the above factual matter, came to a conclusion and in paragraphs 37 and 38, held as follows :- 37. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in a catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the appellant-petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless must be a part of cause of action , nothing less than that. 38. In the present case, the facts which have been pleaded by the appellant Company, in our judgment, 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, in our opinion, therefore, was not wrong in dismissing the petition. 9. Hence, taking int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent will not give cause of action. A cause of action must exist and it is a condition precedent before initiation. By no means, the above factor constitute material, essential or integral part of cause of action. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner is a Non-Resident Company and represented by its Power of Attorney holder, who resides at New Delhi. The second respondent office, who passed the impugned order is also situated at New Delhi. It is also stated that in the export questionnaire, the petitioner had given its address for communication at New Delhi. Moreover, the appellate authority is also in Delhi. 10. Taking into consideration the principles enunciated in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) Alchemist Ltd and Another v. State Bank of Sikkim and Others and (ii) Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Another (cited supra), this Court is of the view that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. Hence, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate the other contentions advanced by the petitioner. 11. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
