TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer of DRI issued a summons to the petitioners during the course of investigation, would not give any jurisdiction to us to entertain this petition. In favour of revenue - Special Civil Application No.1209 of 2000, Civil Application No.6127 & 3734of 2000 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2012 - Akil Kureshi and Harsha Devani, JJ. Appellants Rep by: Mr Uday Joshi M/s Trivedi Gupta: 1 - 2. Respondents Rep by: Mr Asim J Pandya : 1 - 2, 6. Mr Satyam Y Chhaya : 1, Notice Served By DS: 2, 6. Rule Served By DS : 3 - 5,7 - 8. JUDGEMENT Per: Akil Kureshi: 1. The petitioners had filed this petition initially with a prayer for issuance of a writ holding and declaring action of respondent No.3 i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Varanasi in not issuing Re-transfer Release Advices in respect of three DEPB licences purchased by the petitioners as illegal and bad in law. The petitioners had consequently prayed for a direction to such authority to issue such Release Advices. During the pendency of the petition, certain developments took place. The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi issued an order dated 30-3-2000 cancelling the three DEPB licences. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licences were transferred in favour of the petitioners. The counsel submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioners were either party to or even aware of the alleged fraud by M/s. Yash Exports. In short, he would contend that the authorities erred in not accepting the licences which were already endorsed in favour of the petitioners. 6. The respondents have filed detailed affidavit and appeared through their counsel. On the strength of such affidavit, Shri Satyam Chhaya opposed the petition contending that the DEPB licences were obtained through fraud. The exporters M/s. Yash Exports was found to be not in existence. The exports were never made. Invoices were overpriced. Investigation was carried out to establish that there was serious fraud committed in obtaining such licences. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners cannot be granted any benefit on the strength of such bogus licences. 6.1 He raised objection with respect to territorial jurisdiction of this court. Relying on paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-reply dated 13-3-2000 filed by one Shri Yogendra Garg, the counsel submitted that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other. 11. In that view of the matter, we now proceed to decide this preliminary objection of the respondents. It is not in dispute that M/s. Yash Exports had shown its address at Varanasi when claiming DEPB licences. It had claimed to have made exports from Varanasi and accordingly received the DEPB licences issued by the Joint Director of Foreign Trade, New Delhi . The petitioners after such licences were transferred in their name, imported the goods at Mumbai. The goods were not cleared by the Customs authority at Mumbai. When the petitioners approached the respondent No.3 i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Varanasi with a grievance regarding such non-clearance of the goods, such authority refused to grant the request of the petitioners. Thereupon, the petitioners approached this court. On the record, we have a legal notice issued by the petitioners through their advocates dated 18-11-1999. Such notice is addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Varanasi . In the notice, the petitioners conveyed that the release order previously issued could not be utiiised and that fresh release orders be issued. Though in the petition, the petitioners have stated that l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mports on the ground of not accepting the DEPB licences purchased by the petitioners. 15. In National Textile Corpn. Ltd. and others vs. M/s. Haribox Swalram and others reported in 2004 AIR SCW 2067 , the Supreme Court held and observed that facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. In the said case, the petitioners had been purchasing various quantities of cloth from the mills situated in Bombay . The petitioners had entered into a contract and made advance payments for such purchases. The mills supplied and delivered the goods to the petitioners from time to time but substantial part of the contract remained unexecuted. The mills could not deliver the goods as the bank transactions and accounts of the mills had been frozen. Later on, the management of the mills was taken over by the Central Government under Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance, 1983. The Central Government constituted National Textile Corporation to manage such mills which were taken over. The petitioners, therefore, approached such Corporation for release o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of notice at the head office of the company at Calcutta could give rise to a cause of action within the State of West Bengal to enable the Calcutta High Court to exercise jurisdiction in a matter where challenge to acquisition proceedings conducted in Jaipur was made. It was held that the entire cause of action culminating in the acquisition of the land under Section 152 of the Rajasthan Act arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court and it was not necessary for the company to plead the service of notice upon them at Calcutta for grant of appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notice issued by the Rajasthan Government under Section 52 of the Act. It was thus held that Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 16. In the present case, as already noted, no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. In the result, the petition is required to be rejected only on this ground. We hereby do so without expressing any opinion on the merits. Rule discharged. Interim relief vacated. 17. In view of the order passed in the main matter, Civil Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
