Industrial licence ownership by ultimate control supports substitution of name and consequential imported oil supply.

Territorial jurisdiction may be founded where communications relating to takeover, amendment of the industrial licence, and refusal to endorse the change were addressed to the petitioner at its registered office, and the relevant impact was felt there. For industrial licensing, "owner" may mean the party exercising ultimate control over the undertaking under an operative sale arrangement and possession, so substitution of the petitioner's name in the licence was warranted despite a pending specific performance suit, subject to that suit's result. Once the change in ownership was recognised, the consequential entitlement to the prescribed quota of imported oil followed, with supply directed under the governing rules and arrears left to be considered separately.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to substitution of its name in the industrial licence as the owner of the undertaking. (iii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to supply of the prescribed quota of imported oil for the vanaspati unit.

Issue (i): Whether part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.

Analysis: The relevant communications concerning takeover of the undertaking, request for amendment of the licence, and the refusal to endorse the change were all addressed to the petitioner at Bangalore, where its registered office was situated. The Court also noted that, for the purposes of the Act, the High Court having jurisdiction over the place of the registered office had relevance, and that the facts necessary for seeking the relief and their impact were substantially felt within the jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to substitution of its name in the industrial licence as the owner of the undertaking.

Analysis: The agreement for sale, delivery of possession, and the parties' pleadings showed that the petitioner had been put in control of the undertaking, though a specific performance suit was pending. Under the statutory definition of "owner", ownership in this context turned on ultimate control over the affairs of the undertaking, not on absolute title. The pendency of civil litigation did not by itself prevent endorsement of the change in ownership in the licence.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner, subject to the result of the pending specific performance suit.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to supply of the prescribed quota of imported oil for the vanaspati unit.

Analysis: Once the petitioner was held entitled to have the change in ownership recognised, the consequential claim for supply of imported oil also followed. The question of arrears from an earlier date was left to be decided on application, while supply from the date of the order was directed in accordance with the governing rules.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the impugned communication was quashed, with directions issued to recognise the petitioner in the licence and to grant supply of imported oil in accordance with law, all subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of industrial licensing under the Act, ownership may be determined by ultimate control and possession under an operative agreement, and a pending suit for specific performance does not by itself bar recognition of a change in ownership where the statutory requirements for endorsement are otherwise satisfied.

---