TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, and the parties to such proceedings, are outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. This is the situation in the present case. Also, the petitioners here are not without remedy on account of this Court declining to entertain their petitions. We may mention that we have been adopting this approach in certain other matters including Raj Leather Cloth Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [ 2006 (11) TMI 659 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where again the challenge was to an order of the Settlement Commission by a party located in Haryana. We are not inclined to adopt a different approach here. We do not agree with the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the facts are any different, warranting a departure f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show cause notices were issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa in respect of the supplies made by the petitioners of M.S. Ingots, to Goa Ispat Ltd., located in Goa, by evading the payment of excise duty. The settlement applications were initially filed before the Additional Bench of the Settlement Commission at Mumbai where initially certain sums were deposited. Later the proceedings were transferred to the Principal Bench of the Settlement Commission at Delhi. The settlement applications have been disposed of by the impugned final orders passed by the Principal Bench of the Settlement Commission at Delhi in the manner indicated. 3. When these writ petitions were first listed before this Court, notice was directed to issue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division Bench of this Court in Suraj Woolen Mills v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 2000 (123) E.L.T. 471 (Del.) and Bombay Snuff Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2006 (194) E.L.T. 264 (Del.) on the ground that the question in the said two decisions concerned the maintainability of statutory appeals under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Excises Act, 1944 respectively and did not concern the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226. 5. Mr. Kaul further submits that the facts in the present case are not in dispute at all and the short point involved is whether the impugned order of the Settlement Commission which has granted full immunity from payment of interest to the sister concern, Goa Ispat Limited, could have validly di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (See Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhany, AIR 1941 Cal 670; Mandal Jalal v. Madanlal, (1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. M/s. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., (1997) CWN 122; S.S. Jain and Co. and another v. Union of India and others, (1994) CHN 445; M/s. New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 126)." In other words even the judgment in Kusum Ingots and Allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. Turning to Vijay Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the following observations made after taking into account the judgment in Kusum Ingots, may be usefully noticed. "On a reading of Article 226(1) of the Constitution it will be abundantly clear that without the next following provision, a High Court may not have been empowered to issue a writ or order against a party which is not located within the ordinary territorial limits of that High Court. The power to issue writs against any person or Authority or Government even beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any High Court is no longer debatable. The rider or pre-requisite to the exercise of such power is that the cause of action must arise within the territories of that particular High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rector General of Foreign Trade ('DGFT') by way of a writ petition by a company located in Mumbai was entertained. However, as has been pointed out in the said judgment itself, a substantial portion of cause of action arose in Delhi since the notification under challenge was issued by the DGFT in Delhi and all representations were made to and considered by the authorities in Delhi. Therefore, the judgment in Agri Trade India Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), cannot come to the assistance of the petitioners herein. 10. We reiterate that the issue in these cases is not whether this High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. That it certainly does not under Article 226, as already explained. The question really is whether this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
