Territorial jurisdiction and liberal condonation of short delay upheld where part of cause of action arose locally.

Territorial jurisdiction can be sustained where part of the cause of action arises within the High Court's limits, including the original customs adjudication and its consequential appellate proceedings, so the situs of the Tribunal alone is not decisive. A short delay in filing a statutory reference application within the condonable period should be viewed liberally when supported by a bona fide explanation, such as pursuit of an initially mistaken remedy, and where no gross negligence or mala fides is shown. On that approach, the jurisdiction objection fails and refusal to condone delay is unsustainable, with the reference application liable to be restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the original petition challenging the Tribunal's order passed at Chennai in relation to a customs dispute originating from import and adjudication at Cochin; (ii) whether the delay of 13 days in filing the application for reference under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was liable to be condoned.

Issue (i): whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the original petition challenging the Tribunal's order passed at Chennai in relation to a customs dispute originating from import and adjudication at Cochin.

Analysis: The dispute arose from import of goods through Cochin Port and from the original adjudication order passed at Cochin. The appeal and the reference application before the Tribunal were consequences of that adjudication. The place where the appellate order was passed may also give rise to part of the cause of action, and even a small fraction of the cause of action is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The situs of the Tribunal is not ative by itself, and where part of the cause of action arises within the territorial limits of the High Court, the petition is maintainable.

Conclusion: The territorial jurisdiction objection was rejected and the original petition was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the delay of 13 days in filing the application for reference under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The reference application was filed within the maximum condonable period. The explanation showed that the department first proceeded on a mistaken decision to move the Supreme Court and thereafter, within the limitation period, decided to pursue the correct remedy of reference. The respondent had not entered appearance before the Tribunal to oppose condonation. In the absence of gross negligence or lack of bona fides, and considering that the delay was short, the Tribunal ought to have taken a liberal view and accepted the explanation as sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The delay was required to be condoned and the Tribunal's refusal to condone it was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the Tribunal's refusal to condone delay was set aside, the reference application was restored, and the matter was directed to be decided on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a short delay in seeking a statutory reference is supported by a bona fide explanation and falls within the permissible condonable limit, the authority should adopt a liberal approach in the absence of gross negligence or mala fides; territorial jurisdiction may be founded on any part of the cause of action, including the original adjudication giving rise to the impugned proceedings.

---