9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October, 2019. The mere fact that the Central Government may have directed the SFIO investigation, would not vest jurisdiction in this Court, especially when the specific order impugned in this case has been passed by the ROC in Chennai. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. The present petition is dismissed, with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. - W.P.(C) 5723/2020 & CM APPLS. 20679/2020, 20680/2020, 20681/2020, 20682/2020 - - - Dated:- 27-8-2020 - JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH J. Petitioner Through: Mr. R. Subramanian, Advocate (M9381288048) Respondent Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC for U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Government) located at Delhi, under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013. According to ld. counsel, once an SFIO investigation has been ordered, the name of the company cannot be removed under SubRule 3(1) of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter, Rules ). Ld Counsel submits that the SFIO investigation forms part of the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action. 5. This Court has considered the matter. There is no doubt that under Section 212 read with the said Rules, there is an investigation by SFIO. The SFIO investigation may have been directed by the Central Government and the authorities located in Delhi. However, the order by which the Petitioner is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra) and proceed to state our conclusions in seriatim as follows: (a) (f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinized by the High Court depending upon the factual matrix of each case in view of what has been stated in Ambica Industries (supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. (supra). 8. Thus, in order for the Court to have jurisdiction, the impugned action forming part of the cause of action, ought to have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The various orders of the Ld. Division Bench passed in similar circumstances are clear to the effect that this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction if the striking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
