9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court arose within the territorial limits of Delhi High Court. Thus, applying the settled legal position to the facts in the present matter, it is clear that the cause of action must be addressed to the Delhi High Court. The Petitioners have assailed the act of the Committee of the Bank in classifying its accounts as 'fraud', even though the Master Circular is not assailed, perhaps since its validity was already tested before the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the integral part of the cause of action is similar in both the Petitions. Even the averment in the present Petition regarding cause of action relating to the corporate office of the Respondents being within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is identical to the averment made in the Petition before the Delhi High Court. It is failed to see as to how the Petitioners could have averred the same pleading in both these Petitions based on the corporate office of the Respondents, to selectively choose a forum of their choice. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court in the second round of litigation involving the same issue is nothing but Forum-Shopping on the part of the Petitioners. The forum convinens is undoubtedly th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt disposed off a bunch of Writ Petitions including its W. P. No. 11886 of 2021 by order dated 12th May 2023. The Respondent-Bank was given liberty to proceed against the present Petitioners and other Petitioners in their respective Petitions, in accordance with law. 5. Mr. Karl Tamboly, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that pursuant to the liberty granted by Delhi High Court, the Petitioners received a show-cause notice dated 26th September 2023 issued by the Respondent No. 1-Bank, calling upon them to give their explanations on the issues raised in the show-cause notice. The STPL requested a complete copy of the Forensic Audit Report and other documents. It also issued a response to the showcause notice. Correspondence going back and forth between the parties, were exchanged and the impugned order dated 5th January 2024 was passed by the Bank, classifying the accounts of the Petitioners as 'fraud'. Being aggrieved by this order, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. 6. Dr. Birendra Saraf, learned Senior Advocate represented the Respondent No. 1-Bank. At the very outset, he raised an objection that the Petition was not maintainable on the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onveniens in depth. Referring to its previous decision in State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties (1985) 3 SCC 217. Ltd., the Court held that the answer to the question, whether the service of notice is an integral part of the cause of action within the meaning of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution, must depend upon the nature of the impugned order giving rise to the cause of action. The Apex Court also referred to paragraph 15 of its judgment in Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engg. Enterprises (P) (1994) 4 SCC 710., which reads as under: "2. We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court of Calcutta should have exercised jurisdiction in a case where it had absolutely no jurisdiction. The contracts in question were executed at Aligarh, the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh, even the contracts provided that in the event of dispute the Aligarh court alone will have jurisdiction. The arbitrator was from Aligarh and was to function there. Merely because the respondent was a Calcutta-based firm, the High Court of Calcutta seems to have exercised jurisdiction where it had none by adopting a queer line of reasoning. We are constrained to say that this is a cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Delhi High Court. 13. In any case, the Petitioners had already challenged the Circular dated 1st July 2016 issued by the Reserve Bank of India as violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India as well as the action of the Bank in classifying its accounts as 'fraud'. Paragraph 29 of the said Petition containing the jurisdiction clause specifically avers as under: "29. The Petitioner submits that the Respondents has offices within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Further, the Petitioner Company submits that the Corporate Banking Branch of the Respondent No. 1 Bank with which communications were exchanged by the Petitioner Company is situated within New Delhi. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the present Petition." 14. In the present Petition also, the Petitioners have assailed the act of the Committee of the Bank in classifying its accounts as 'fraud', even though the Master Circular is not assailed, perhaps since its validity was already tested before the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the integral part of the cause of action is similar in both the Petitions. Even the averment in the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
