Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2014 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 300 - HC - Money LaunderingTerritorial Jurisdiction of HC - Place of cause of action - Action under Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA') and COFEPOSA - Held that:- the concept of forum conveniens has been recognised by the Courts and cause of action for determining territorial jurisdiction has been held to be a bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove to entitle him to a judgment in his favour. The petitioner had incorporated the companies in question in Mumbai; FIRs had been registered in Mumbai; investigations had been carried out in Mumbai; the initial information report under PMLA, 2002 being ECIR/65/MZO/2009 dated 30th October, 2009 was registered in Mumbai, pursuant to which the complaint, being PMLA Special Case No.01/2013, had been filed before Special Court, Mumbai, which is still pending adjudication in Mumbai. Consequently, it is not difficult for this Court to arrive at the conclusion that if not in whole, but at least the material and substantial cause of action had arisen in Mumbai. Petitioner's submission that since arrest order was issued in Delhi and subsequently, the petitioner was also arrested in Delhi constitutes a cause of action is misplaced. "Cause of action", for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, for all intent and purport, must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It means a bundle of facts which are required to be proved. The entire bundle of facts pleaded, however, need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved is material facts whereupon a writ petition can be allowed. It is pertinent to mention that in the entire petition there is not even a whisper as to what cause of action in favour of the petitioner had accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court and why this Court should exercise jurisdiction. The petitioner, for reasons best known to himself, has even omitted the mandatory jurisdiction clause in the present petition. - petition dismissed.
|