9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quash all actions and prosecution initiated against the Petitioner emanating from dishonour of cheque cases; (iii) Pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." (emphasis supplied) 2. At the outset, respondent No.1-UOI had raised a preliminary objection with respect to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition on the ground that no cause of action had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 3. For this reason, we have confined ourselves to only those facts which are relevant for deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction, eschewing other facts and details. 4. The relevant facts as can be culled out from the present petition and the documents annexed are that petitioner was the Chairman and Director of M/s. City Limouzines (India) Ltd. and also of at least ten other City Group of companies. In 2002, M/s. City Limouzines (India) Ltd. launched an investment scheme by the name of 'Go-Vehicle on rental basis and earning by sitting at home' whereby investments were invited from general public assuring high returns. Similar schemes were also float ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 03rd March, 2011 set aside the detention order. 9. Mr. Singh submitted that the above mentioned facts were sufficient to establish that a substantial cause of action had arisen in Delhi, which would entitle the petitioner to file the present petition in this Court. In support of his submission, Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel relied upon Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 640; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254 and Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. 181 (2011) DLT 658 (LB). The relevant portion of Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- "43. We make it clear that the mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of another State. Nor are we to be understood that any person can create a fake cause of action or even concoct one by simply jutting into the territorial limits of another State or by making a sojourn or even a permanent residence therein. The place of residence of the person moving a High Court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Indian Companies Act. Its registered office is at Mumbai. It obtained a loan from the Bhopal Branch of State Bank of India. Respondent 2 issued a notice for repayment of the said loan from Bhopal purported to be in terms of the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. Questioning the vires of the said Act, the said writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court by the appellant herein which was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Submissions 4. The only submission made on behalf of the appellant before the High Court as also before us is that as the constitutionality of a parliamentary Act was in question, the High Court of Delhi had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 18. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the Court. 19. Passing of a leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the field is not covered by any statutory rule, executive instructions issued in this behalf shall also come within the purview thereof. Situs of office of Parliament, legislature of a State or authorities empowered to make subordinate legislation would not by itself constitute any cause of action or cases arising. In other words, framing of a statute, statutory rule or issue of an executive order or instruction would not confer jurisdiction upon a court only because of the situs of the office of the maker thereof. 27. When an order, however, is passed by a court or tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words, as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned situation a complaint was filed by JBHL against the appellant at Shillong. The maintainability of the said complaint came to be questioned by Majithia by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court which was dismissed. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was invoked on the ground that the entire transaction on which the complaint was based had taken place at Mumbai and not at any other place outside the said town, much less at Shillong. It was further contended that the jurisdiction to investigate into the contents of the complaint was only with the police/courts in Mumbai. The prayers made in the said writ petition were: (SCC p. 644, para 3) "3. (a) to quash the complaint lodged by JBHL or in the alternative to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State of Meghalaya to transfer the investigation being conducted by the officers of CID at Shillong to the Economic Offences Wing, General Branch of CID, Mumbai or any other investigating agency of the Mumbai Police, and (b) to issue a writ of prohibition or any other order or direction restraining the Special SP Police, CID, Shillong and/or any investigating agency of the Meghalaya Police ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court within whose jurisdiction a legislation is passed, it would not have the sole territorial jurisdiction but all the High Courts where cause of action arises, will have jurisdiction.............. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 28. We have referred to the scope of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution only to highlight that the High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with an order taking cognizance passed by a competent court of law except in a proper case. Furthermore only such High Court within whose jurisdiction the order of the subordinate court has been passed, would have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Article 227 of the Constitution unless it is established that the earlier cause of action arose within the jurisdiction thereof. (emphasis supplied) 15. A Five Judges Bench of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. (supra) after considering a number of judgments including Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2007) 6 SCC 769 has held as under:- "31. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be maintainable before this Court, however, the cause of action has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case of Alchemist Ltd. (supra). (c) An order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated. Yet, the same may not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (d) The conclusion that where the appellate or revisional authority is located constitutes the place of forum conveniens as stated in absolute terms by the Full Bench is not correct as it will vary from case to case and depend upon the lis in question. (e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked in a malafide manner is too restricted / constricted as the exercise of power under Article 226 being discretionary cannot be limited or restric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the accused had been arrested. But in law, two High Courts cannot simultaneously exercise jurisdiction. In our view the mere fact that the summons dated 14th December, 2012 whereby the petitioner was asked to appear in person in the office of Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi Zonal Office and the arrest order was issued from the Delhi Zonal Office are not facts which by themselves would confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court. A perusal of both the summons and the arrest order reveal that they were issued by Mr. D. Shanmugam, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, Camp at Delhi Zonal Office at 10-A, Jam Nagar House, Akbar Road, New Delhi-110011. This Court is of the opinion that this would imply that Mr. D. Shanmugam, at the relevant time, had only camped at the Delhi Zonal Office for the sake of convenience and it cannot be inferred that the Delhi Zonal Office was directly related to the affairs of the case against the petitioner under PMLA, 2002. Further, the present petitioner was arrested in Delhi because he was available in Delhi. In the present case, the prosecution presented the petitioner before the concerned Duty Magistrate on the same day, i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise jurisdiction under Article 226 on account of other considerations as defined under the concept of forum conveniens. 23. Admittedly, the Special Court, Mumbai is in seisin of the matter and the prosecution as well as the evidence is available there. Further, this Court takes note of the fact that the petitioner had himself submitted to Bombay High Court's jurisdiction and had earlier filed the bail application being Criminal Bail Application 71/2013 before it in the proceedings under the PMLA Act, 2000 of which the petitioner is now seeking quashing. In our opinion, it would be appropriate that only such High Court, within whose jurisdiction the subordinate Court is located before whom the trial proceedings are pending and whose quashing is sought, should entertain writ petitions under Article 226. Consequently, the Bombay High Court is better equipped to deal with the present case. 24. It is pertinent to mention that in the entire petition there is not even a whisper as to what cause of action in favour of the petitioner had accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court and why this Court should exercise jurisdiction. The petitioner, for reasons best known to himself, has ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
