9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvation and Development Rules, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'MCDR, 1988] was obtained at every stage for grant of prospecting licence in favour of respondent No.3. He pointed out that the mineral in question fell in the First Schedule of MMDR Act. According to him, not only a miniscule part of cause of action had arisen in Delhi, but the most vital part being the Central Government's revisional order had been passed under Rule 55 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 at New Delhi. He pointed out that there was no objection either by the State or Central Government to the matter being heard by this Court. 4. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that this Court in Vishnu Security Services Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2012 (129) DRJ 661 after analysing the Full Bench judgment in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India Ors., 181 (2011) DLT 658 (LB) had held that where original authority is situated in one State and the appellate authority is situated in another, then the writ would be maintainable in both the courts and it is for the petitioner to chose his forum. 5. He also submitted that subsequently this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diametrically opposite to that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, on an issue of law arising from orders of the Revisional Authority. 13. The question which could arise: Is the Revisional Authority, which is a pan India tribunal, bound to follow the directions of this court or that of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh................ 14. In the context of certain other statutes such as the Income Tax Act where the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) operates in Benches, this court in a series of judgments, which has found approval of the Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2007) 6 SCC 769, has taken the view that the ITAT would be bound by the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in which the Assessing Officer is located [see Seth Banarasi Das Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1971) 81 ITR 170 (All)., which is cited with approval in Suresh Desai and Associates Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 71 (1998) DLT 772 (DB) 15. The Supreme Court in Ambika Industries (supra) examined this problem in the context of Section 35 G (9) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In terms of section 35 G, an appeal lay to the High Court against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court. It is a different matter that by way of necessity, a Tribunal may have to exercise jurisdiction over several States but it does not appeal to any reason that Parliament intended, despite providing for an appeal before the High Court, that appeals may be filed before different High Courts at the sweet will of the party aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal. 15. In a case of this nature, therefore, the cause of action doctrine may not be invoked.... (emphasis supplied) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 18. Given the aforesaid principle, let me examine in the argument put forth by the petitioner. The petitioner before me has contended that even if a miniscule part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, that court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. It is contended that in this case, one of the impugned orders is passed by the Revisional Authority, which has its situs within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, and therefore, this court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. A reference was also made to various provisions of the MMDR Act, to contend that in respect of minerals which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (52) applicants who could be aggrieved by the decision of the State Government (respondent no. 2) in passing an order in favour of respondent no. 3. As noticed above, many of the applicants are from States other than the State of Maharashtra. There are several applicants also from the State of Maharashtra. It is not known as to whether any of these applicants also approached the Revisional Authority. Assuming that they did, and were unable to persuade the Revisional Authority to reverse the decision of the State Government (Respondent no. 2), they could approach a High Court other than this High Court. Potentially, it could lead to a serious issue of conflict of orders. It is, therefore, in this context, that in a series of matters, to which I have made a reference above, various Division Benches of this court have taken a view that the High Court, which would have jurisdiction with regard to Tribunal's which have a pan India jurisdiction or at least jurisdiction over several states, the most appropriate High Court (which a litigant should approach) would be the one where the original authority is situate. The said judgments were delivered in the context of a statutory regime. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Delhi or the High Court wherein, the registered office of the company, which was involved in the litigation, was located. The Supreme Court after examining the scheme of the Companies Act, came to the conclusion that the expression 'the High Court' in Section 10 would have to be construed in line with the provisions of Section 2(11) and Section 10(1)(a) of the said Act. Section 2(11) of the Companies Act defines 'court', in respect of any matter relating to a company, to mean, the court having jurisdiction under the said Act, with respect to that matter relating to that company, as provided in Section 10. Section 10(1)(a) of the Companies Act, states that the court having jurisdiction under the said Act shall be the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned, is situate. The appellant, before the Supreme Court, had raised a preliminary objection before this court (i.e., the Delhi High Court) that the appeal under Section 10 could not be entertained as the registered office of the company was situate in Madras (now Chennai). This court rejected the plea; which is how the matter travelled to the Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority is located constitutes the place of forum conveniens as stated in absolute terms by the Full Bench is not correct as it will vary from case to case and depend upon the lis in question. (e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked in a malafide manner is too restricted / constricted as the exercise of power under Article 226 being discretionary cannot be limited or restricted to the ground of malafide alone. (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). (g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) that since the original order merges into the appellate order, the place where the appellate authority is located is also forum conveniens is not correct. (h) Any decision of this Court contrary to the conclusions enumerated hereinabove stands overruled. (emphasis supplied) 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence was also made to a U.S. decision wherein it has been observed that courts have open doors to those who seek justice, but when justice is blended with some harassment, it needs to be checked. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is dominus litis, but when the choice is motivated by temptation/ strategy to force the petition at an inconvenient place, the Court has the power to step in. We are also in agreement with the view of learned Single Judge in the impugned order that the Division Bench in Vishnu Security Services (supra) overruled the judgment of learned Single Judge only on the ground that no reason had been given by the learned Single Judge in that case to come to the conclusion that this Court was not the convenient forum. Similarly, in Jan Chetna (supra), the Division Bench observed that though the issue raised was purely legal relating to an object in another State, yet as the issue raised had no local flavour at all, the said doctrine need not be invoked. Consequently, in our opinion the judgments of Vishnu Security Services (supra) and Jan Chetna (supra) have neither deviated nor could have deviated from the judgment of five Judges of this Court in Sterling Agro Industrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
