TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... play in the acts of the respondent at Chennai, there is no cause of action arise for filing the writ petition at Chennai. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, fairly submitted that it cannot be said that Delhi High Court shall not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Since there is no cause of action, either wholly or in part, occurred at Chennai, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner. - W. P. No. 3611 of 2016, WMP No. 2975 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2016 - M. Duraiswamy, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Raman For the Respondent : Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, Standing counsel ORDER The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if cause of action wholly or in part arises within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction even though the seat of Government or authority or residence of person against whom the direction, order or writ is sought to be issued is not within the said territory. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the High Court's jurisdiction . (ii) 2002 (1) SCC 567 [Union of India and others v. Adani Exports Ltd. and another], wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows: 15. Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India which speaks of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said territories. The expression 'cause of action' means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the court. Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. Thus the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition, the truth or otherwise of the averments made in the petition being immaterial. 18. As we have noticed earlier, the fact that the respondents are carrying on the business of export and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t submitted that the relief sought for in the writ petition itself is pursuant to the order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the respondent at New Delhi. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the relief sought for in the writ petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent not to take any coercive action or any other steps against the petitioner company, which according to the petitioner is located at Chennai, will not confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain the present writ petition. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the entire assessment records are available only at New Delhi and no document is available at Chennai. That apart, the learned counsel also submitted that since the relief sought for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat no record is available in Chennai office and all the records are only in New Delhi office. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an assessee only in the New Delhi office and not at Chennai. The petitioner also submitted their Income Tax Returns only at New Delhi office and not at Chennai office. Merely because the petitioner is having an office at Chennai the same will not confer territorial jurisdiction to this Court to entertain the writ petition. That apart, deducting TDS by the petitioner at Chennai will not confer territorial jurisdiction at Chennai. When the petitioner is an assessee in the office of the Income Tax Department at New Delhi, only the Courts at New Delhi shall have j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, the respondent at Chennai has not participated in any of the action of the petitioner. Though the petitioner had deducted TDS, the same has been remitted only to the Income Tax Office at New Delhi. When the respondent has no role to play in the acts of the respondent at Chennai, there is no cause of action arise for filing the writ petition at Chennai. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, fairly submitted that it cannot be said that Delhi High Court shall not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Since there is no cause of action, either wholly or in part, occurred at Chennai, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 7. The petitioner having an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
