TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said company has merged with Reliance Industries Limited which has its registered office at Mumbai. The offences are alleged to have been committed by respondent No. 5 which are made punishable under the Companies Act. 3. Section 10(1)( a ) of the Companies Act, being relevant is reproduced hereunder : "( a ) the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate, except to the extent to which jurisdiction has been conferred on any District Court or District Courts subordinate to that High Court in pursuance of sub-section (2);" Thus keeping this aspect in mind, the court which is required to be approached, is the court where the registered office of the company is situate. In the instant case it is the case of the petitioner that offences are committed under the Companies Act. On the record, list has been placed pointing out that the offences which are alleged to have been committed have been compounded for which compounding fees have also been imposed. This is so stated in the affidavit dated 10th March, 2003 filed by Mr. B.K. Bansal. Joint Director (Inspection), the details of which, are given in A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Considering these, when no cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of Delhi, one must consider where to initiate action. 5. In this connection, we may also note the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. [2002] 1 SCC 567 wherein, while considering the question of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the Supreme Court observed as under : "17. It is seen from the above that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application as in this case, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do 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 be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch were discussed at the meeting in Bhilai at the end whereof an agreement was drawn up for the dissolution of the partnership and for distribution of assets amongst the partners to which the plaintiff was a signatory. The suit filed in the Chandigarh Court was resisted on the preliminary contention that no part of the cause of action had arisen at Chandigarh and therefore that court had no jurisdiction. The Chandigarh Court upheld the contention and this Court affirmed the said view. While dealing with the averment that the plaintiff was carrying on business of the firm from Chandigarh where the branch office of the firm was situate this court held that there is no averment that the branch at Chandigarh was started with the consent of the other partners and intimation thereof was given to the Registrar of Firms as required by section 61 of the Partnership Act; the mere printing of stationery was neither here nor there and therefore no part of the cause of action could be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Court." Thus it is very clear that the High Court at Delhi will have no jurisdiction when cause of action has arisen outside the territor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts against transgressing into the jurisdiction of the other High Courts merely on the ground of some insignificant event connected with the cause of action taking place within the territorial limits of the High Court to which the litigant approaches at his own choice or convenience. The following are such observations." (p. 722) "If an impression gains ground that even in cases which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, certain members of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however, trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire system to ridicule. We are greatly pained to say so but if we do not strongly deprecate the growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be failing in our duty to the institution and the system of administration of justice. We do hope that we will not have another occasion to deal with such a situation." In para 43, in the case of Navinchandra N. Majit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
