9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... January 2024 passed by the Committee of the Respondent No. 1-ICICI Bank classifying the Petitioner's account as fraud and other ancillary reliefs including quashing of show-cause notice dated 26th September 2023. 2. The Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are Directors of Supertech Township Projects Ltd., (for the sake of brevity referred as 'STPL'), which Directorship is presently placed under suspension. The Petitioner No. 3 is the erstwhile Director of the STPL. The Respondent No. 1 is the ICICI Bank, the Respondent No. 2 is the Reserve Bank of India and the Respondent No. 3 is the STPL, which is the Principal Borrower Company. 3. Admittedly, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is initiated against STPL by the Punjab and Sindh Bank and by ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories." Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: "20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) ...... (b) ....... (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 9. The Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oring the fact that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. It clearly shows that the litigation filed in the Calcutta High Court was thoroughly unsustainable. " 10. In another of its recent judgment in the matter of State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd. (2023) 7 SCC 791., the Supreme Court held that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, the same by itself cannot be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to entertain the Writ Petition. In the context of the facts in that matter, the Apex Court held that merely because the Petitioning Company has its office in Gangtok, Sikkim, the same by itself does not for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the cause of action must be addressed to the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounts as 'fraud'. Pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court, the Petitions were disposed off by the Delhi High Court reserving liberty to the Banks to initiate action against the Petitioners and others by following due process of law. The Respondent No. 1-Bank has thus availed the liberty to issue fresh show-cause notice to the Petitioners and take it to its logical conclusion in terms of the impugned order. Once the Delhi High Court was seized with the integral part of the issue, judicial propriety requires that the present Petition should also be filed before the Delhi High Court. 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 Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
