TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld refuse to entertain the request since it would amount to interfering and usurping the power of the other High court, and that, in that case the seat of authority must be deemed to be in hyderabad. This is really contrary to the judgment in Kusum Ingots case [ 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT] . Even in Bhanu Constructions case, the Division Bench has held that after the 15th amendment of the Constitution introducing Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India, the legal position is that a Writ can be issued by a high Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises irrespective of the seat of authority. Therefore, even assuming that by a fiction, the seat of Appellate Authority in this case should be deemed to be in Hyderabad logically, that alone is not the criterion and the High Court within whose jurisdiction, cause of action, arises can definitely issue a Writ. In this case, the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal by which the petitioner is aggrieved is most certainly a cause of action . The decision in Bhanu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. s case as regards maintainability is not correct. The order of reference is answered accordingly. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh, for convenience, it holds office at Chennai, as the same Presiding officer has been discharging the same function for other States. 21. Admittedly, this Madras High Court has no power of jurisdiction or superintendence, either administrative or judicial, over the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad. Merely because the Appellate Tribunal is situated within the territorial limits of this High Court, such a fact cannot confer jurisdiction to scrutinise the order passed by such Tribunal in any Appeal preferred against the decision of the original Tribunal, over which this Court has no power of superintendence. 22. By virtue of Article 226(1) of the Constitution, this High Court shall have power to issue appropriate orders to all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories of this State, in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, and can call for the returns from such Tribunals and may also make order, issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such Courts and Tribunals. If a Tribunal is constituted as Appellate Tribunal for hearing Appeals against decisions of more than one original Tribunal situated in different State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that, Merely because the Appellate Tribunal is situated within the territorial limits of this High Court, such a fact cannot confer jurisdiction to scrutinise the order passed by such Tribunal in any Appeal preferred against the decision of the original Tribunal, over which this Court has no power of superintendence. Even on the facts of the case, the Division Bench refused to exercise their discretion in favour of the Petitioners and held that this Court had no jurisdiction. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners, on the other hand, referred to (i) U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow v. State of U.P. AIR 1995 SC 2148 (ii) Kusum Ingots and alloys Ltd v. Union of India 2004 (3) CTC 365: 2004 : AIR SCW 2766 (iii) Bhanu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Andhra Bank 2005 (5) CTC 721:2006 (2) BC 191 DB (cited supra) (iv) Ex Rect. (MP) A. Madurai Veeran v. Union of India and Ors. 2006 (1) CTC 732 (v) The Commissioner of Central Excise v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd and submitted that what can be culled out from all these decisions is that the Writ Petition will be maintainable before the Court within whose jurisdiction a part of cause of action a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 reads thus: 8. Establishment of Appellate Tribunal - (1) The Central Government shall, by notification, establish one or more Appellate Tribunals, to be known as the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on such Tribunal by or under this Act. (2) The Central Government shall also specify in the notification referred to in Sub-section (1) the Tribunals in relation to which the Appellate Tribunal may exercise jurisdiction. [*(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sections (1) and (2), the Central Government may authorise the Chairperson of one Appellate Tribunal to discharge also the functions of the Chairperson of other Appellate Tribunal.] * Inserted by Act I of The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions (Amendment) Act, 2000, dated 25.3.2000. (v) Articles 226(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India read thus: 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs -(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressions used in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. 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.) 24. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of his argument would contend that the situs of framing law or rule would give jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court and in support of the said contention relied upon the decisions of this Court in Nasiruddin v. STAT, 1975 (2) SCC 671: AIR 1976 SC 331 and U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P. 1995 (4) SCC 738. So far as the decision of this Court in Nasiruddin v. STAT (cited supra) is concerned, it is not an authority for the proposition that the situs of legislature of a State or the authority in power to make subordinate legislation or issue a notification would confer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other High Court, it will be for the Petitioner to choose his forum. 27. When an order, however, is passed by a Court or Tribunal or an Executive Authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the Appellate Authority is constituted at another, a Writ Petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words, as order of the Appellate Authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a Writ Petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the Appellate Authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the Appellate Authority. Forum convenience: 30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons case, the Petitioners had approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court twice and obtained orders with a direction to exhaust their remedy before the Tribunal and before the Appellate Tribunal. They filed an Application and also an Appeal and got them dismissed. The question was asked as to why the Petitioners having chosen to challenge the decree twice in Andhra Pradesh, have not gone back to Andhra Pradesh but approach this Court, there was no answer and therefore, the Division Bench concluded that they lack bona fides. Therefore, their conclusion that it amounts to forum shopping and this Court would refuse to exercise its discretion to entertain the Writ Petition cannot be faulted. However, the Division Bench held that under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India, the High Court's jurisdiction depends on the seat of authority and by a legal fiction, a seat of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal should be deemed to be within the seat concerned and therefore, held that the Court do not have jurisdiction. This finding ignores the effect of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. Under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India the High Court is vested with the same powe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rritories. (See O.N.G.C. v. Utpal Kumar Basu 1994 (4) SCC 711 : 1994(3) R.R.R. 374: 13. The following extract from Alchemist Limited and Anr. v. State Bank of Sikkim and Ors.,AIR 2007 SC 1812 : 2007 (4) ALD 61 (SC) : 2007 (136) Comp Cos. 665 (SC) : JT 2007 (4) SC 474 : 2007 (4) Mh.LJ 586 : 2007 (4) SCALE 412 : 2007 (75) SCL 421 (SC) : 2007(1) UJ 405 (SC), traces the history of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. From this it is clear that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai regardless of where the Tribunal is situate. 9. Before entering into the controversy in the present Appeal, let the legal position be examined: Article 226 of the Constitution as it originally enacted had two- fold limitations on the jurisdiction of High Courts with regard to their territorial jurisdiction. Firstly, the power could be exercised by the High Court throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction , i.e. the writs issued by the court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. Secondly, the person or authority to whom the High Court is e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esidence or location within those territories. (Emphasis supplied) As to the cause of action, the Court stated: The rule that cause of action attracts jurisdiction in Suits is based on statutory enactment and cannot apply to Writs issuable under Article 226 which makes no reference to any cause of action or where it arises but insists on the presence of the person or authority 'within the territories' in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction 11. Again, a question arose in Khajoor Singh v. Union of India. A Bench of Seven Judges was called upon to consider the correctness or otherwise of Saka Venkata Rao. The majority (Sinha, C.J., Kapoor, Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo, Das Gupta and Shah, JJ.) reaffirmed and approved the view taken by this Court earlier in Saka Venkata Rao and held that the High Court of Jammu Kashmir was right in not entertaining the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction. Speaking for the majority, Sinha, C.J., stated: It seems to us therefore that it is not permissible to read in Article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed in order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enable the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises to issue directions, orders or Writs to any Government, authority or person, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The Committee feel that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises in part only should also be vested with such jurisdiction. The legislative history of the constitutional provisions, therefore, make it clear that after 1963, cause of action is relevant and germane and a writ petition can be instituted in a High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which cause of action in whole or in part arises. 14. The Division Bench in Bhanu Constructions case held that the High Court would have no power of superintendence, if as a result of intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an order of a Tribunal over which the High Court has no power of superintendence, is subject to scrutiny and that then the High Court would refuse to entertain the request since it would amount to interfering and usurping the power of the other High Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
