9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and does not constitute an integral part of cause of action so as to vest jurisdiction in this Court. It has been pleaded that the appellant-company had been subjected to alleged similar enquiries at the behest of respondent No. 3 and other authorities in Kolkata, we are of the considered view that in the factual matrix of the instant case as impugned summons had been issued by respondent No. 1 authority from Kochi and the appellant-company is required to respond to the same at Kochi also, the principle of forum conveniens, as aforesaid, would dissuade the Court from exercising its discretionary writ jurisdiction - Decided against assesee. - M.A.T. No. 1457 of 2013 and C.A.N. No. 9772 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2013 - Arun Mishra, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lkata and various documents/information have been collected. 3. The appellant further pleaded that the subject matter of the impugned summons relate to an enquiry into the affairs of the company undertaken in Kolkata and the records relating thereto are also lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned judge failed to consider the aforesaid facts and illegally dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. He further argued that mere sites of the office of the respondent No. 1 at Kochi, Kerala would not divest jurisdiction of this Court as part of cause of action is traceable within its territorial limits. 5. In sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are impugned summons issued by the authority from Kochi in the State of Kerala. Impugned summons have been received in Kolkata by the appellant company. Such fact is an incidental one and does not constitute an integral part of cause of action so as to vest jurisdiction in this Court. 10. Reference in this regard may be made to State of Rajasthan Ors. v. M/s. Swaika Properties Anr., (1985) 3 SCC 217, wherein the Apex Court held that receipt of notice at the registered office of the writ petitioner within the territorial limits of the High Court would not give rise to cause of action within its territory unless service of such notice was an integral part of cause of action. 11. In Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India Anr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
