2002 (7) TMI 725 - HC - Companies Law

High Court dismisses NBFC's petition for lack of jurisdiction, imposes costs on petitioners

Al-Faihad Fincom Ltd. Versus Central Economic Intelligence Bureau

Al-Faihad Fincom Ltd. Versus Central Economic Intelligence Bureau - [2004] 50 SCL 354 (AP) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.2. Allegations of abuse of process of law and sharp practices by the petitioners.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the High CourtJurisdiction of this Court:The Court examined whether it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the power to issue directions, orders, or writs can be exercised in relation to territories within which the cause of action wholly or in part arises. If no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, it would lack jurisdiction to issue any writ or direction.Case Law on Question of Jurisdiction:The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments to elucidate the principles governing territorial jurisdiction. In *Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engg. Enterprises (P) Ltd.*, it was held that the High Court should not exercise jurisdiction if no part of the cause of action arose within its territory. Similarly, in *Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu*, the Supreme Court held that the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided based on the facts pleaded in the petition.Facts of this Case in Support of Cause of Action:The Court found that the registered office of the petitioner company was in Madhya Pradesh, and the complaints of cheating were registered in New Delhi. The petitioners alleged threats to their life and property from depositors, but the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent (Station House Officer, Mirchowk Police Station, Hyderabad) denied receiving any such complaints. The Court concluded that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh, and therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.Issue 2: Allegations of Abuse of Process of Law and Sharp PracticesCounter Averments:The third respondent denied all allegations made by the petitioners, stating that no complaints were received, nor was any police protection sought by the petitioners. The Court noted that the petitioners had not made any depositors or investors parties to the case, and the allegations against respondents 2 and 3 were found to be false.Points for Consideration:The Court considered whether the petitioners had resorted to sharp practices and obtained interim orders by making false statements. The Court found that the petitioners had intentionally withheld information and made false allegations to create jurisdiction in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Court condemned this behavior as an abuse of the process of law.Conclusion:The Court concluded that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands and had suppressed necessary facts. The writ petition was filed to pre-empt any action by respondents and depositors. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the proceedings were not bona fide and were designed to abuse the process of the Court. The petitioners were burdened with exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000.Summary:The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) and its Managing Director, holding that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action arose within Andhra Pradesh. The Court also found that the petitioners had resorted to sharp practices, made false allegations, and suppressed necessary facts to create jurisdiction. The Court condemned this behavior as an abuse of the process of law and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000 on the petitioners.