9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equent arbitration proceedings, arise out of events which took place in Tamil Nadu. Further, the orders relating to the property in dispute, including the attachment order and the arbitral award, have all been passed by the District Court in Nagercoil and the Madras High Court. The petitioner has previously approached these Courts for relief, and the orders passed by them directly pertain to the property in question and the execution of the arbitral award. Thus, there is no justification for invoking the jurisdiction of this High Court when the Courts in Tamil Nadu have already been seized of the matter and have issued relevant orders. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [ 2013 (11) TMI 1800 - DELHI HIGH COURT ], has held that in case of pan India Tribunals, or Tribunals/statutory authorities having jurisdiction over several States, the situs of the Tribunal would not necessarily be the marker for identifying the jurisdictional High Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that the ground on which the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondents, including Tamil Nadu Medical Council and Tamil Nadu Nurses an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or approval already granted to the said proposed nursing college, if any. III. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to conduct an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the grant of Essentiality Certificate dated 14.06.2024 to St. Alphonsa Trust. IV. Grant an interim order restraining the Respondents from taking any action on the Essentiality Certificate dated 14.06.2024 or any application based on it, pending the final disposal of this petition 3. The petitioner i.e. Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., on 01.11.2013, had entered into an agreement with St. Alphonsa Trust, represented by the Bishop of the RC Diocese of Kottar, Nagercoil, to construct buildings for a proposed medical college on certain properties located in Kadiappattinam Village, Kanyakumari, for a total consideration of Rs. 52,13,95,852/-. Upon completing the construction by 11.10.2016, the petitioner had raised a claim for Rs. 20,00,00,000/- as the balance amount due for the work. However, despite multiple requests, the Trust had failed to make the payment, leading the petitioner to initiate arbitration proceedings under Section 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llege to the Trust on the attached subject property, and an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the grant of the Essentiality Certificate dated 14.06.2024. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that despite being aware of the order of attachment concerning the subject properties, the respondent authorities proceeded to issue the Letter of Permission (LOP) dated 10.08.2024 based on a fraudulent application. It is stated that the notice issued by them was ignored and not taken into cognizance by the authorities. It is further submitted that although a Show Cause Notice has been issued by the respondent authorities and the LOP has been suspended, this action does not rectify the initial issuance of the LOP, which was in clear violation of the National Medical Commission s rules and in contravention of the petitioner s notice. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved by the respondent authorities disregard for the law. It is also argued that the St. Alphonsa Trust does not play an active role in these proceedings, as no dispute has been raised against them before this Court, nor has any relief been sought directly concerning them. The Trust is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court to entertain the petition. In this regard, the respondents have also placed reliance on several judgments of this Court, to support the contention that the mere location of an office in a particular territory does not suffice for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is contended that the petitioner has engaged in forum shopping by choosing to approach this Court after being unsuccessful before the Madras High Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner failed to implead necessary parties such as St. Alphonso Trust and the counseling authorities situated in Tamil Nadu, which are essential for the adjudication of this matter. The respondents argue that this omission is deliberate and intended to misuse the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, it is submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to invoke the public law remedy under Article 226 in this case, as the dispute is of a private nature between the petitioner and the Trust. The petitioner has no legal interest or rights concerning the permissions granted by the respondents to the medical college in question. Thus, the petition is also liable to be dismissed on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l college located in Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu. Both the petitioner and the respondent Trust are situated in Tamil Nadu, and the properties in question are also located there. The cause of action, including the petitioner s claims for unpaid amounts and subsequent arbitration proceedings, arise out of events which took place in Tamil Nadu. Further, the orders relating to the property in dispute, including the attachment order and the arbitral award, have all been passed by the District Court in Nagercoil and the Madras High Court. The petitioner has previously approached these Courts for relief, and the orders passed by them directly pertain to the property in question and the execution of the arbitral award. Thus, there is no justification for invoking the jurisdiction of this High Court when the Courts in Tamil Nadu have already been seized of the matter and have issued relevant orders. 10. In this background, it will be useful to refer to the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in case of Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254. The relevant observations which are relevant to the facts of the present case are extracted hereunder: Forum conveniens 30. We must, howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... territories. 16. The expression cause of action has not been defined in the Constitution. However, the classic definition of cause of action given by Lord Brett in Cooke v. Gill [Cooke v. Gill, (1873) LR 8 CP 107] that cause of action means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court , has been accepted by this Court in a couple of decisions. It is axiomatic that without a cause, there cannot be any action. However, in the context of a writ petition, what would constitute such cause of action is the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be challenged before this High Court or has to be challenged before the respective jurisdictional High Courts, the Division Bench of this Court held that when the foundational facts giving rise to the cause of action to the appellant to approach the Consumer Fora arose within the State of Telangana, it would be absurd to allow the petitions against orders of NCDRC to be filed only in High Court of Delhi, which would mean that a consumer who is agitating for his rights in far of places like Assam, Manipur or any other distant part of the country would have to necessarily travel to Delhi for such redressal, which cannot be allowed in view of the doctrine of forum conveniens‟. 16. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5264, has held that in case of pan India Tribunals, or Tribunals/statutory authorities having jurisdiction over several States, the situs of the Tribunal would not necessarily be the marker for identifying the jurisdictional High Court. 17. It is also crucial to note that the petitioner had previously filed two writ petitions before the High Court of Madras, which have already dealt with si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
