TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Procedure. It means a bundle of essential facts that are required to be proved. However, the entire bundle of facts pleaded, need not constitute a cause of action and what is necessary to be proved is such material facts based whereon a writ petition can be allowed. Recently, a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court in the case of M/S. STERLING AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS., JAN CHETNA VERSUS MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS ORS., MANU JAIN VERSUS SMT. NEERJA SHAH ORS., M/S BAFNA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. ORS. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI-IV ORS., THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX ANR. VERSUS M/S. RICOH INDIA LTD. ORS. [ 2012 (6) TMI 76 - DELHI HIGH COURT - LB] , had the occasion to examine the doctrine of forum convenience and the concept of cause of action in view of conflicting judgments on the issue referred to them. After examining a number of decisions of the Supreme Court on this issue including the cases of NASIRUDDIN VERSUS STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ 1975 (8) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT] , KISHORE RUNGTA VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [ 2001 (3) TMI 944 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , ALCHEMIST LIMITED VERSUS STATE BANK OF SIKKIM [ 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opinion that it would be inconvenient for it to entertain the present petition and the High Court of Rajasthan would be better equipped to deal with the issues raised in the present petition. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present application is dismissed. - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI For the Appellant : Mr. Arjun Singh Bawa and Ms. Sushmita Das, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Sharma, Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Agarwal and Mr. Arun Baali, Advocates ORDER HIMA KOHLI, J. CM APPL. 4084/2014 (by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 21.03.2014) 1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia that the order dated 21.03.2014 granting it leave to withdraw the writ petition be recalled and the same be restored for being heard on merits. 2. On 21.03.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to make submissions on the maintainability of the writ petition as the court was of the opinion that it would not be vested with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii) Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2011 Delhi 174 5. It is therefore the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition by virtue of sub-articles (1) (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the reason that at least a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court which would be sufficient for vesting it with the jurisdiction to exercise its discretionary powers. He urged that irrespective of the fact that the impugned loan recall notice had emanated from the regional office of the respondent/Corporation located at Jaipur, all the important decisions of such a nature are taken by the respondent/Corporation at its head office located at Delhi, and taking that into consideration, the petition does not suffer from want of territorial jurisdiction and the order dated 21.3.2014 ought to be recalled. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation had strongly opposed the present application and argued that nothing had taken place in Delhi in respect of the Loan Agreement for the petition to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... courts at Delhi for the reason that the very basis of filing the writ petition is the issuance of impugned notice dated 20.01.2014, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹ 6,26,93,311/- alongwith overdue interest under the Loan Agreement, and the same has admittedly been issued from the Regional Branch of the respondent/Corporation located in Jaipur. In support of his submission that merely because the head office of the respondent/Corporation is located in Delhi, would not be sufficient ground to vest territorial jurisdiction on this Court, learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation has relied on the following decisions on the aspect of forum convenience:- (i) Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors.; (1994) 4 SCC 711 (ii) Canon Steels (P) Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs; (2007) 14 SCC 464 (iii) Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. vs. Kalyan Banerjee; (2008) 3 SCC 456 9. The Court has heard the arguments advanced by the counsels for the parties and examined the decisions cited by them. 10. The territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts has been defined in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the Constitution (Fifteenth A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause of action arises, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. However, the expression cause of action has not been defined in the Constitution or in the Code of Civil Procedure. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra), '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 essential facts that are required to be proved. However, the entire bundle of facts pleaded, need not constitute a cause of action and what is necessary to be proved is such material facts based whereon a writ petition can be allowed. 15. Apposite in this context, is the following observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India Anr., reported as AIR 2004 SC 232:- 18............The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereon a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do to the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , statutory rule or issuance of an executive order or instruction would not confer jurisdiction upon a court only because of the situs of the office of the maker thereof. 20. Recently, a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court in the case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. (supra), had the occasion to examine the doctrine of forum convenience and the concept of cause of action in view of conflicting judgments on the issue referred to them. After examining a number of decisions of the Supreme Court on this issue including the cases of Sri Nasiruddin vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 2 SCC 671, Kishore Rungta and Ors. vs. Punjab National Bank Ors., 2003 (151) ELT 502 (Bom), Alchemist Limited (supra), National Textile Corporation Ltd. vs. Haribox Swalram, (2004) 9 SCC 786, the Full Bench observed as below : 31. The concept of forum convenience fundamentally means that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the convenience of all the parties before it. The convenience in its ambit and sweep would include the existence of more appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for just adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make the writ petition maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated. Yet, the same may not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience. (d) The conclusion that where the appellate or revisional authority is located constitutes the place of forum convenience as stated in absolute terms by the Full Bench is not correct as it will vary from case to case and depend upon the lis in question. (e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked in a malafide manner is too restricted / constricted as the exercise of power under Article 226 being discretionary cannot be limited or restricted to the ground of malafide alone. (f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum convenience and the nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinized by the High Court depending upon the factual matrix of each case in view of what has been stated in Ambica Industries (supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. (supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Deed and at no stage was it in default of the Loan Agreement or the Sub-Lease Deed. 24. The petitioner has gone to great lengths to refer to the Sub-Lease Deed dated 11.1.2008 and the obligations cast on the sub-lessors, which they had allegedly failed to discharge, resulting into litigation between the parties. The petitioner claims to have suffered losses and damages owing to the purported mis-representation and false promises extended by the sub-lessors and the unreasonable stand adopted by the respondent/Corporation in recalling the entire disbursed loan amount despite being aware of the litigation pending between the parties in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur and the arbitration proceedings, initiated by it against the sub-lessors, also pending at Jaipur. 25. Further, a perusal of the memo of parties of the writ petition reveals that the registered office of the petitioner/company is situated in Kolkata and its corporate office is at New Delhi and the registered office of the respondent/Corporation is at Delhi and it has regional offices situated in different regions in India including one at Jaipur. The Loan Agreement dated 07.11.2008, whereunder the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Corporation either at Delhi or at Jaipur. However, nothing turns on the aforesaid clauses as they are not a subject matter of dispute between the parties. Similarly, the existence of the escrow account opened with the Axis Bank at Delhi under the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement would hardly be of any assistance to the petitioner for the reason that no dispute has been raised in respect of the transactions made in the said account. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner had raised a valid point when he contended that merely because two litigations are pending in the Rajasthan High Court, i.e., Civil Writ Petition No.9109/2010 filed by the sub-lessors against the Forest Department, State of Rajasthan and the Arbitration Petition No. 88/2011 filed by the petitioner against the sub-lessors for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the Sub-Lease Deed, would itself not debar the petitioner from approaching this Court for relief in appropriate cases. The petitioner's contention is that the registered office of the respondent is in Delhi and therefore it has chosen to approach this court. But that in itself would not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect land is also located in Udaipur. 31. To conclude, this Court is of the view that the facts relating to jurisdiction that have been pleaded in the application and for that matter, in the writ petition, can hardly be stated to be either essential or material, much less integral for constituting a part of the cause of action, as envisaged under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, for vesting territorial jurisdiction on this Court. On the contrary, as noted above, the most vital parts of the cause of action have arisen in Jaipur and the mere presence of the registered office of the respondent/Corporation in Delhi or the facility extended to the petitioner to address any correspondence to the respondent/Corporation and/or remit moneys due or payable under the Loan Agreement at Delhi, would have to be treated as irrelevant factors, being a miniscule part of the cause of action. By no stretch of imagination can these factors be treated as conclusive for determining the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 32. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation that ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
