9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Zone Bench, Chennai ('Tribunal' in short) dated 5.3.2007, whereby the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs.1 Crore as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal on merits. By order dated 18.7.2007, this Court gave liberty to the appellant to file necessary applications for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for default and for rectification with relevant documents and the Tribunal was directed to consider the said applications and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appellant filed R.O.M. (Rectification of Mistake) Petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal revoked its earlier direction for deposit of Rs.1 Crore towards the tax dues, but directed the appellant to deposit Rs.20 Lakhs towards penalty as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal. The appellant again approached this Court in Writ Petition SR. No.121063 of 2007. The learned single Judge, however, relying upon a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Ram Rakh Vyas vs. The Union of India Others , A.I.R. 1977 Rajasthan 243, held that since the appellant-company is situated in Pudukottai District, the subject matter of the writ petition squarely comes within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court at Chennai. The learned single Judge, however, relying upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Ram Rakh Vyas vs. The Union of India Others (supra) held that the words in respect of cases 'arising in' would mean 'pertaining to the districts of or 'arising from', and therefore the writ petition could be entertained only at the Madurai Bench of the High Court and can never be entertained by the Registry at the Principal Bench. We are afraid that the view taken by the learned single Judge is contrary to the settled legal positions. 6. In Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal , AIR 1976 SC 331 : (1975) 2 SCC 671, the Supreme Court dealt with a similar provision contained in Clause-14 of the Allahabad High Court (Amalgamation) Order 1948, in the following words: - (at pp340-341) "The meaning of the expression "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" in the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order was answered by the High Court that with regard to applications under Article 226 of the same will be "a case arising within the areas in Oudh" only if the right of the petitioner in such an application arose first at a place within an ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the alleged cause of action." (emphasis supplied) 7. In U.P.R.C. Mill Adhikari Parishad vs. State of U.P. ,[1999 (109) E.L.T. 5(SC)] : A.I.R. (1995) S.C. 2148,(1995) 4 SCC738, writ petitions were filed before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court challenging a notification/order issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government at Lucknow, whereunder it was decided to sell six sugar factories. One of the sugar mills was situated within the Oudh area, whereas the remaining mills were situated outside the Oudh area. The contention raised before the High Court was that the sale in terms of the notification, if finalised, would be given effect at the places where the mills are situated and since five out of the six mills were situated outside the Oudh area, the Lucknow Bench had no jurisdiction to take cognizance, entertain and decide the writ petition in respect of the five mills in terms of Clause 14 of the Allahabad High Court (Amalgamation) Order. 1948. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held as follows : " 14. ... The territorial jurisdiction of a Court and the 'cause of action' are interlinked. To decide the question of territorial jurisdiction, it is necessar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eping in view the expressions used in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India , indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter . Situs of office of the respondents- whether relevant 23. A writ petition, however, questioning the constitutionality of a parliamentary Act shall not be maintainable in the High Court of Delhi only because the seat of the Union of India is in Delhi. ( See Abdul Kafi Khan v. Union of India (AIR 1979 Cal 354 .) 24. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his argument would contend that the situs of framing law or rule would give jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court and in support of the said contention relied upon the decisions of this Court in Nasiruddin v. STAT (1975) 2 SCC 671 : AIR 1976 SC 331) and U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P . ((1995) 4 SCC 738 ).So far as the decision of this Court in Nasiruddin v. STAT (cited supra) is concerned, it is not an authority for the proposition that the situs of legislature of a State or the authority in power to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the cause of action arises within one or the other High Court, it will be for the petitioner to choose his forum. ………………………..... 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 aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the Appellate Authority." (emphasis supplied) 9. In Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India , (2006) 6 S.C.C. 207, the Supreme Court held : "6. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution is of great importance. It reads as follows: "226 (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. 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. 10. In Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao , the petitioner applied to the High Court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of prohibition restraining the Election Page 1296 Commission, (a statutory authority constituted by the President) having its office permanently located at New Delhi, from inquiring into the alleged disqualification of the petitioner from membership of the Madras Legislative Assembly. The High Court of Madras issued a writ. The aggrieved petitioner approached this Court. Allowing the appeal and reversing the decision of the High Court, this Court held that the High Court of Madras had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Speaking for the Court, Patanjali Sastri, C.J. made the following observations: The makers of the Constitution, having decided to provide for certain basic safeguards for the people in the new set up, which they called fundamenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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." (emphasis supplied) 11. A Full Bench of this Court in Sanjos Jewellers vs. Syndicate Bank reported in 2007 (5) C.T.C. 305, has held that a writ petition challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal which is situated within the territorial limits of this Court, while the original Court is situated in another State, is maintainable. Similar is the view taken by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, to which one of us (A.P. Shah, C.J.) was a party in Kishore Rungta vs. Pubjab National Bank , 2001 (4) Mh. L.J. 195 [2003(151) E.L.T. 502(BOM.)]. In that case, it was held that the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in Jaipur merged in the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai. The Courts in Jaipur would have no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition which challenged the order of the Debts Recovery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
