Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2007 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (9) TMI 690 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of Writ Petition - Doctrine of "forum conveniens" - Territorial limits of jurisdiction - cause of action, arises - Whether the writ Petition challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) which is situate within the territorial limits of this Court, while the original Tribunal is situate in another State is maintainable - notice to the petitioner u/s 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("sarfaesi Act") r/w Rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench in Bhanu Constructions case [2000 (11) TMI 1141 - SUPREME COURT] held that the High Court would have no power of superintendence, if as a result of intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an order of a tribunal over which the High Court has no power of superintendence, is subject to scrutiny and that then the High court would refuse to entertain the request since it would amount to interfering and usurping the power of the other High court, and that, in that case the seat of authority must be deemed to be in hyderabad. This is really contrary to the judgment in Kusum Ingots case [2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT]. Even in Bhanu Constructions case, the Division Bench has held that after the 15th amendment of the Constitution introducing Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India, the legal position is that a Writ can be issued by a high Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises irrespective of the seat of authority. Therefore, even assuming that by a fiction, the seat of Appellate Authority in this case should be deemed to be in Hyderabad logically, that alone is not the criterion and the High Court within whose jurisdiction, cause of action, arises can definitely issue a Writ. In this case, the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal by which the petitioner is aggrieved is most certainly "a cause of action". The decision in Bhanu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. "s case as regards maintainability is not correct. The order of reference is answered accordingly. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed
|