9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calamity, issued by respondent no. 2-RBI. 4. Due to inability of the petitioner to revive financially, the petitioner requested respondent no.3 for restructuring of its loan account. However, the said request was not accepted by respondent no.3. 5. Since, the loan was not timely serviced by the petitioner, respondent no.3 had declared petitioner's loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (hereinafter 'NPA') and subsequently, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter 'SARFAESI Act') was issued to the petitioner on 21.07.2023. 6. Being aggrieved by the actions of respondent no.3, the petitioner had filed the instant petition, inter alia praying for the following relief:- a. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated-20.01.2021, passed by Shri R. S. Tanwar, Asst. P.F. Commissioner, Delhi-South, passed U/s-7Q of EPF& MP Act 1952. b. Pass any other further order/relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in the present facts and circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P) Ltd., 1997 CWN 122, S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India. (1994) 1 CHN 445 and New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India" 9. The same principle has been discussed by a five judge Bench of this court in the case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein the court has held that the court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be totally oblivious of the concept of forum convenience as the mere fact of the situs of cause of action cannot itself be a determining factor compelling the court to entertain the matter. Further, the court has laid down that the cause of action depends upon the factual matrix of each case and cannot be totally based on the situs of the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority while completely ignoring the concept of forum convenience. Also, the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced for the reference herein below: "32. The principle of forum convenience in its ambit and sweep encapsulates the concept that a cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide 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 convenience 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 convenience" is not correct. (h) Any decision of this Court contrary to the conclusions enumerated hereinabove stands overruled." 10. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Sachin Hindurao Waze vs UOI and Ors. has relied upon the above-mentioned judgements and has laid down two elements which have to be considered by any court while accepting jurisdiction to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Firstly, if any part of the cause of action arise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts pleaded constitute a part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, would necessarily involve an exercise by the High Court to ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, constitute a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. In so determining, it is the substance of the matter that is relevant. It, therefore, follows that the party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the High Court to decide the dispute and that, at least, a part of the cause of action to move the High Court arose within its jurisdiction. Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject-matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted. Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court. These are the guiding tests." 12. The Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban Development Corp. has declined to entertain the petition by observing that the situs of the Head Office cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent/Corporation in Delhi or the facility extended to the petitioner to address any correspondence to the respondent/Corporation and/or remit moneys due or payable under the Loan Agreement at Delhi, would have to be treated as irrelevant factors, being a miniscule part of the cause of action. By no stretch of imagination can these factors be treated as conclusive for determining the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 32. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation that neither the factors mentioned by the petitioner, nor the circumstances would by themselves confer territorial jurisdiction on this court for maintaining the petition in Delhi. Rather, this Court is of the opinion that it would be inconvenient for it to entertain the present petition and the High Court of Rajasthan would be better equipped to deal with the issues raised in the present petition. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the present application is dismissed, while leaving th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
