9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idential promises of Shri Ashok Gandhi and Shri Kirti Kumar, two of the persons involved in the export of software packages to Russia, were also searched under section 37 of the Act resulting in recovery and seizure of certain documents. After considering these documents and recording the statements of S/Shri Rahul Gupta, Shekhar Gupta and Nemi Chand Shah, the Special Director, Enforcement, Delhi, issued notice dated February 1, 2000, to the company and its partners including the petitioners to show cause as to why adjudication proceedings as contemplated by section 51 of the Act should not be held against them for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)(f)(i) read with section 64(2) of the Act. The petitioners have challenged the notices dated February 1, 2000, on various grounds set out in the writ petitions and have prayed is under: "(a) that the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the notification/clarification dated June 18, 1997, issued under the orders of respondent No. 1 and/or: (b) that the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to respondent No. 3 commanding that they will intimate respondent No. 4 that the events ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners to invoked, the jurisdiction of this court. Shri J. Kathuria, advocate for the petitioners, argued that the objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the jurisdiction of this Court Should be rejected because a part of cause of action has accrued to the petitioners within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. He submitted that the notices which constitute the foundation of the action proposed to be taken under the Act have been served upon the petitioners at Amritsar which falls within the territory of the State of Punjab and, therefore, this court has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. Learned counsel referred to the prayer clause of the writ petitions to show that the petitioners have challenged not only the notification/clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, but also prayed for issuance of a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 4 from proceeding with the notice dated February 1, 2000, and acting upon the notification/clarification dated June 18, 1997, and submitted that the respondents cannot object to the maintainability of the writ petitions. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied on the following de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the cause of action, wholly or in part'. had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. In order to confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Calcutta, NICCO must show that at least a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. That is at best its case in the writ petition. It is well settled that the expression 'cause of action' means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the court. In Chand Kaur v. Pratap Singh [1889] 16 Cal 98 at 102, Lord Watson said: '...the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint as the cause of action or in other words to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.' Therefore, in det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Of course, the execution of the contract work was to be carried out at Hazira in Gujarat. Therefore, merely because it read the advertisement at Calcutta and submitted the offer from Calcutta and made representations from Calcutta would not, in our opinion, constitute facts forming an integral part of the cause of action. So also the mere fact that it sent fax messages from Calcutta and received a reply thereto at Calcutta would not constitute an integral part of the cause of action. Besides the fax message of January 15, 1993, cannot be construed as conveying rejections of the offer as that fact occurred on January 27, 1993. We are, therefore, of the opinion that even if the averments in the writ petition are taken as true, it cannot be said that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court." The question as to whether service of notice can be treated as part of cause of action was considered by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, AIR 1985 SC 1289. The facts of that case were that vide notice dated June 25, 1975, issued under section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, the Special Officer, Town ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The mere service a notice under section 52(2) of the Act on the respondents at their registered office at 18-B, Brabourne Road, Calcutta, i.e., within the territorial limits of the State of West Bengal, could not give rise to a cause of action within that territory unless the service of such notice was an integral part of the cause of action. The entire cause of action culminating in the acquisition of the land under section 52(1) of the Act arose within the State of Rajasthan, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at the Jaipur Bench. The answer to the question whether service of notice is an integral part of the cause of action within the meaning of article 226(2) of the Constitution must depend upon the nature of the impugned order giving rise to a cause of action. The notification dated February 8, 1984, issued by the State Government under section 52(1) of the Act became effective the moment it was published in the Official Gazette as thereupon the notified land became vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. It was not necessary for the respondents to plead the service of notice on them by the Special Officer, Town Planning De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent agreed that the order of the High Court may be quashed leaving it open to the respondent to approach the competent authority for redress of his grievance at the appropriate stage. Their Lordships accepted his request and did not go into the merits of the case but held that the writ petition filed at the Guwahati High Court was not maintainable. This is clearly borne out from paragraph 8 of the judgment which reads as under: "In view of what has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is not necessary for us to enter into the merits of the case, suffice it to say that on the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the Guwahati High Court was clearly in error in deciding the question of jurisdiction in favour of the respondent, In, our considered view, the writ petition filed by the respondent in the Guwahati High Court was not maintainable." We may now advert to the decisions relied upon by Shri Kathuria. In L. V. Veeri Chettiar v. Sales Tax Officer [1970] 26 STC 579, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court considered the objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g and if a limb of that bundle of facts is available, seen or discernible in one particular place which is a seat of the High Court, then such High Court has the power to exercise all the powers conferred on it under article 226(1A), notwithstanding the fact that the authority against whom the ultimate rule has to be issued and whose act has created a cause of action as a whole or in part, is situate outside its territorial limits. The person primarily affected by the respondent issuing the notices from time to time to the petitioners and calling upon them to produce the accounts of their business carried on in the State of Tamil Nadu and again by proposing to assess them to the best of his judgment on the assumption of certain jurisdictional facts, is the addressee of such notice and such affectation relates to the bundle of facts in the totality of the lis or proceeding concerned, and such impact necessarily gives rise to a cause of action, though it may be in part. It is established that in fiscal laws a proposal to assess forms part and parcel of the machinery of assessment and thus understood, the service of notice to assess and calling upon the petitioner to explain has given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risen in Bombay and, therefore, that High Court did not have the jurisdiction to grant relief to the petitioner. A learned single judge of that court relied on the decisions of the Madras High Court in L. I,. Veeri Chettiar's case [1970] 26 STC 579 and the Rajasthan High Court in Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd.'s case [1981] ELT 440 and held as under: "However, I think that his contention falls squarely within the ratio of the case of Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd. [1981] ELT 440 (Raj). This is a case of the Rajasthan High Court and is in relation to customs and countervailing duty. After referring to the amendment of article 226 of the Constitution of India and after referring to a number of judgments including the judgments cited by Mr. Sethna, the Rajasthan High Court took the view that even though all actions had been taken outside Rajasthan and in Bombay, still the Rajasthan High Court had jurisdiction inasmuch as all the orders were forwarded to the petitioner at Pipalia Kalan in Rajasthan and they were received at that place in Rajasthan." The learned single judge distinguished the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, AIR 1985 SC 1289, by observing tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
