9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (11) TMI 17 - SC - CustomsTerritorial jurisdiction of HC - Action arouse at Chandigarh CESTAT decide the matter is in delhi - When a part of the cause of the action arises within one or other HC it will be for the petitioner to choose his forum - Delhi HC will hear the matter on merits
Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing Customs Act Appeal, Jurisdiction of High Courts, Applicability of Kusum Ingots case, Forum conveniens doctrine. Analysis: The appeal challenged orders passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing Customs Act Appeal No.4/2004 and a subsequent review application. The High Court held it lacked jurisdiction as the original order was from Mumbai and the appellate order from Delhi by CESTAT. Reference was made to the Kusum Ingots case. The appellant argued that the judgment in Kusum Ingots favored them and the appeal was wrongly dismissed. The factual position was clear - the adjudication order was from Mumbai and the appeal was adjudicated by CESTAT, then filed before Delhi High Court. The appellant argued that the cause of action arose in Chandigarh, giving jurisdiction to Punjab & Haryana High Court. It was highlighted that the Court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction, and the situs of framing law could confer jurisdiction to a High Court. The appellant cited Nasiruddin and U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad cases. However, the Court clarified that the situs of legislature or authority to make subordinate legislation wouldn't confer jurisdiction on the High Court. The judgment emphasized that a part of the cause of action arising within a High Court's jurisdiction allows the petitioner to choose the forum. The doctrine of forum conveniens could be invoked in appropriate cases. The appellate order was from CESTAT office in New Delhi, giving jurisdiction to Delhi High Court as per Kusum Ingot's case. The Punjab & Haryana High Court's view was deemed justified as the orders were not from its territorial jurisdiction. However, to ensure no person is left without a remedy, the withdrawn Customs Case No.6/04 was directed to be restored in Delhi High Court, which had jurisdiction. It was clarified that the Court hadn't expressed any opinion on the merits of the appeal. The appeal was disposed of without costs.
|
