9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court; the destruction of the school building as a result of natural calamity which led the petitioner claiming his right to restructure the debt took place within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court, therefore, this court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition. The law with regard to the discretionary power of the High Court to not entertain matter on the ground of doctrine of forum non-convenience is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KUSUM INGOTS ALLOYS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT] . It was held that the court is not obliged to entertain cases where even a small part of the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction, as the same cannot be construed to be determinative factor which may compel the court to decide the case. The doctrine of forum convenience in appropriate cases, entitles the court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and refuse to entertain such cases. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner suffered a huge financial loss. The petitioner claims to be entitled for restructuring of loan in terms of the guidelines for organisations affected by natural 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. Pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney. AIR 1941 Cal 670, Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal. AIR 1949 Cal 495, Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Jharia Talkies Cold Storage (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 he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 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 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 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court. The relevant paragraph is reproduced for the reference herein below: 17. Determination of the question as to whether the 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 Coor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vesting territorial jurisdiction on this Court. On the contrary, as noted above, the most vital parts of the cause of action have arisen in Jaipur and the mere presence of the registered office of the 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. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
