9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vigilance Commission and the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred as "CBI") to register first information report (for short, "FIR") in respect of offences mentioned in the petition, investigate and prosecute respondents Nos. 5 and 6 who are residents of Mumbai being a Commissioner of Income-tax and Executive Director of the Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai, respectively, under the provisions contained in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and also the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also prayed that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 should initiate disciplinary proceedings against respondents Nos. 5 and 6 for irregularities. The Union of India, Central Vigilance Commission (though mistakenly shown as "Chief Vigilance Commission") and the cm are joined as respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and the rest of respondents Nos. 2, 5 and 6 are from Mumbai. Learned counsel has fairly stated that the cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. However, according to him, the head office of the CBI is situated at Delhi and therefore this court will have jurisdiction. He further submitted that the office of the Vigilance Commission is also situated at Delhi and, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties are situated at Mumbai and, therefore, police will have to take action at Mumbai. In any event, when the entire cause of action has arisen at Mumbai, we think it most appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the appropriate forum in Mumbai for making a grievance. In this connection, we may also note the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. [2002] 1 SCC 567, wherein, while considering the question of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the Supreme Court observed as under : "17. It is seen from the above that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application as in this case, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless thos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also pleaded that certain disputes had arisen regarding the management of the partnership firm and in regard to the correctness of the accounts which were discussed at the meeting in Bhilai at the end whereof an agreement was drawn up for the dissolution of the partnership and for distribution of assets amongst the partners to which the plaintiff was a signatory. The suit filed in the Chandigarh court was resisted on the preliminary contention that no part of the cause of action had arisen at Chandigarh and therefore that court had no jurisdiction. The Chandigarh court upheld the contention and this court affirmed the said view. While dealing with the averment that the plaintiff was carrying on business of the firm from Chandigarh where the branch office of the firm was situate this court held that there is no averment that the branch at Chandigarh was started with the consent of the other partners and intimation thereof was given to the Registrar of Firms as required by section 61 of the Partnership Act; the mere printing of stationery was neither here nor there and therefore no part of the cause of action could be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (as the learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for M. N. Venkatachaliah C. J. and B. P. Jeevan Reddy J., utilised the opportunity to caution the High Courts against transgressing into the jurisdiction of the other High Courts merely on the ground of some insignificant event connected with the cause of action taking place within the territorial limits of the High Court to which the litigant approaches at his own choice or convenience. The following are such observations : 'If an impression gains ground that even in cases which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, certain members of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however, trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire system to ridicule. We are greatly pained to say so but if we do not strongly deprecate the growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be failing in our duty to the institution and the system of administration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e handled from Ahmedabad; non-granting and denial of utilisation of the credit in the passbook will affect the respondent's business at Ahmedabad; the respondents executed bank guarantee through their bankers at Ahmedabad as well as a bond at Ahmedabad, were the grounds taken for having jurisdiction over the subject in Gujarat State. Thus, it is very clear that where cause of action arose is required to be seen. At least, part of the cause of action must have arisen within the territorial limits where the court is required to take cognizance of the matter. As indicated in the petition itself, it is very clear that the cause of action against the private respondents arose within the territorial limits of the State of Maharashtra. We are not discussing in detail about the manner in which the private respondents are alleged to have committed an act which may amount to an offence. Suffice it to say that as no cause of action has arisen in the State of Delhi and even charge-sheet, if required is to be filed in the court at Mumbai, this court cannot entertain the petition in view of the provisions contained in the Constitution and the law laid down by the apex court in the aforesaid ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
