TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so 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. - W.P.(CRL.) 1546/2013 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2013 - Chief Justice And Manmohan, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. V P Singh and Mr. S S Gandhi, Sr. Adv with Mr. N S Vasisth, Mr. Vishal Singh Mr. Arpan Sharma, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari and Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d FIR No.401/2009 dated 08th October, 2009 by Vakola Police Station, Mumbai. All these FIRs had been registered under Sections 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') against M/s. City Limouzines (India) Ltd. and its Directors including the petitioner for cheating investors who had subscribed to various schemes floated by it. 6. On 11th February, 2013, the prosecution filed a complaint, being Special Case No.01 of 2013 under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA, 2002') before the Court of Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court for Greater Bombay at Mumbai, Designated Court for the PMLA, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Special Court, Mumbai'). The prosecution in the above-mentioned complaint had amongst others alleged that the companies floated by the petitioner had collected monies from approximately 25,000 investors and had cheated them to the tune of Rs.500 crores and had further illegally transferred monies abroad. 7. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the present petition for the reason that sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n at Bombay so as to deprive the High Court of Bombay of total jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Even the very fact that a major portion of the investigation of the case under the FIR has to be conducted at Bombay itself, shows that the cause of action cannot escape from the territorial limits of the Bombay High Court." 10. Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, learned ASG for respondent No.1-Union of India submitted that this Court did not have jurisdiction as in the present case proceedings under the PMLA, 2002 of which the petitioner is seeking quashing, the entire cause of action had arisen in Mumbai. He pointed out that ECIR was registered in Mumbai by the Mumbai Zonal Office and also the complaint under PMLA, 2002 had been filed before Special Court, Mumbai. He submitted that in view of the above said facts the present petition deserved to be dismissed at the outset as the same was not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. 11. Mr. Mehra further submitted that the proceedings under COFEPOSA and PMLA, 2002 were distinct. He submitted that the writ petition filed by petitioner challenging the detention order under COFEPOSA was entertained by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n questioning the constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done because a cause of action will arise only when the provisions of the Act or some of them which were implemented shall give rise to civil or evil consequences to the petitioner. A writ court, it is well settled, would not determine a constitutional question in a vacuum. 22. The Court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction. An order passed on a writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a parliamentary Act, whether interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act. Situs of office of the respondents - whether relevant 23. A writ petition, however, questioning the constitutionality of a parliamentary Act shall not be maintainable in the High Court of Delhi only because the seat of the Union of India is in Delhi. (See Abdul Kafi Khan v. Union of India [AIR 1979 Cal 354] .) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. The view taken by this Court in U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 670 : ILR (1941) 1 Cal 490] , Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945) 49 CWN 357 : AIR 1949 Cal 495] , Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies Cold Storage (P) Ltd. [1997 CWN 122] , S.S. Jain Co. v. Union of India [(1994) 1 CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR 1994 Del 126] .]" (emphasis supplied) 14. In fact, the Supreme Court in Mosaraf Hossain Khan (supra) after referring to Navinchandra N. Majihia (supra) has held as under :- "16. In Navinchandra N. Majithia [(2000) 7 SCC 640 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 215] a contract was entered into by and between a company, Indian Farmers Pvt. Ltd. (IFPL) and Chinar Export Ltd. (CEL). The appellant therein was the Managing Director of IFPL Company. CEL entered into an agreement with IFPL for purchase of the entire shares of IFPL for which it paid earnest money. It, however, failed to fulfil its commitment to pay the balance purchase price within the specified time. IFPL terminated the agreement. A suit was filed by CEL in the High Court of Bombay for specific performance of the said agreement. Two shareholders of CEL took over the management and control of the Company as Directors and they formed another company named J.B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrive at a proper decision on the question of maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court based its decision on the sole consideration that the complainant had filed the complaint at Shillong in the State of Meghalaya and the petitioner had prayed for quashing the said complaint. The High Court did not also consider the alternative prayer made in the writ petition that a writ of mandamus be issued to the State of Meghalaya to transfer the investigation to Mumbai Police. The High Court also did not take note of the averments in the writ petition that filing of the complaint at Shillong was a mala fide move on the part of the complainant to harass and pressurise the petitioners to reverse the transaction for transfer of shares. The relief sought in the writ petition may be one of the relevant criteria for consideration of the question but cannot be the sole consideration in the matter. On the averments made in the writ petition gist of which has been noted earlier it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court." xxxx xxxx ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nveniens in its ambit and sweep encapsulates the concept that a cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court would not itself constitute to be the determining factor compelling the Court to entertain the matter. While exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot be totally oblivious of the concept of forum conveniens. The Full Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has not kept in view the concept of forum conveniens and has expressed the view that if the appellate authority who has passed the order is situated in Delhi, then the Delhi High Court should be treated as the forum conveniens. We are unable to subscribe to the said view. 33. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to modify the findings and conclusions of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) and proceed to state our conclusions in seriatim as follows (a) The finding recorded by the Full Bench that the sole cause of action emerges at the place or location where the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority is situate and the said High Court (i.e., Delhi High Court) cannot decline to entert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 17. Now, let us examine the facts of the case in the context of the aforesaid law. In the present case, 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. 18. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for 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. Going by the petitioner's logic, in all criminal cases, where an accused is arrested in a State different from where FI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel have no relevance to the main issue of quashing of certain provisions of PMLA, 2002 and the complaint filed by respondent before Special Court, Mumbai. 20. This Court is in agreement with Mr. Mehra, learned ASG that proceedings under COFEPOSA and PMLA, 2002 are two independent and separate proceedings, emanating from two different statutes. In the opinion of this Court, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on this Court by drawing an analogy between proceedings under PMLA, 2002 with those under COFEPOSA. 21. This Court is also of the view that, the fact, that it had entertained a writ petition in proceedings under COFEPOSA pending against the petitioner would not mean that it would have to entertain all matters/petitions emanating from one or all cases pending against petitioner in different courts all over India. 22. The principle of forum conveniens also makes it obligatory on the part of the Court to see the convenience of all the parties before it. Be it the existence of a more appropriate forum, expenses, law relating to the lis, convenience of the witnesses, verification and examination of the facts for adjudication of the controversy and other similar and ancillary a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
