9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collusion with the first respondent. According to the appellant, the fifth respondent had inflated the quantity of raw materials required for production of the finished products such as Erythromycin, Raxythromycin and Erythromycin Azithromycin, so that after utilising the actual quantity of raw materials and final products, the remaining quantity was utilized in the account of the first respondent under the pretext of job work placed by the first respondent. It is alleged that having taken advantage of the so called job work system, the fifth respondent had started clearing the in-bound materials, namely the raw materials, without payment of customs duty for the manufacture of the finished products. It is also alleged that the fifth respondent had fraudulently fabricated bogus records with relation to the mother liquor, "the mixture of spent solvents". According to the appellant, the key persons of the fifth respondent-Company have admitted the evasion of duty and the part played by them. It is in these circumstances that the show cause notice was issued to respondents 1 to 13. 2. Instead of replying to the show cause notice, the first respondent filed Writ Petition No. 6157 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, it would be easier for them also to pursue the case at Additional Bench, Chennai rather than at Mumbai. It was also submitted by the appellant that most of the parties concerned are in Tamil Nadu and two more persons, who have since resigned from the main company's services, are also in Tamil Nadu; and that the investigation was spread over Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Maharashtra, with the main applicant-Company being situated in Tamil Nadu. The transfer was specifically objected to on the ground that it would not be convenient for the Revenue to pursue the proceedings before the 15th respondent. 4. After considering the relevant facts, the 14th respondent rejected application for transfer. Thereafter, the respondents moved the 16th respondent for transfer of the applications to the 15th respondent. Before the 16th respondent, it was contended that the 14th respondent ought not to have rejected the application for transfer, since the powers of transfer as vested only with the Chairman of the Settlement Commission, namely the 16th respondent and that the 14th respondent ought to have forwarded the request to the 16th respondent and not rejected it itself. The 16th respondent after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd., [JT 2006 (3) S.C. 80] and a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Ex. Rect. A. Madurai Veeran (M.P.) v. Union of India [2006 (1) C.T.C. 732]. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that having acquiesced to the earlier order of transfer of the proceedings from the 14th respondent to the 15th respondent, the appellant is bound to challenge the impugned order only before the Bombay High Court and not before this Court and the order of the learned single Judge did not deserve interference. 8. The territorial jurisdiction of a High Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is determined by Article 226(2). Article 226(2) of the Constitution reads thus : "(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, must be arrived at on the basis of averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise thereof being immaterial. When an order, however, is passed by a Court or Tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words, as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the appellate authority". 11. In the same judgment, the Supreme Court held that the fact that a small part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court will by itself may not be the determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter and that "in appropria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the cause of action that those facts to constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case do not give rise to a cause of action so as to consider territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned". In this case, the facts which decidedly have a bearing with the lis and which gave rise to a cause of action arose here. 14. For all these reasons, we are satisfied that the appellants were entitled to file a writ petition in this Court. The learned single Judge had not dealt with the matter on merits and had dismissed the writ petition only on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The order of the learned single Judge is, therefore, set aside and the matter is sent back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
