TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Madras HC Affirms Jurisdiction Over Writ Against Debt Recovery Tribunal Order Despite Different State Location.</h1> <h3>Sanjos Jewellers Versus Syndicate Bank</h3> Sanjos Jewellers Versus Syndicate Bank - TMI Issues Involved1. Maintainability of Writ Petition2. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 2263. Doctrine of Forum Convenience4. Effect of Appellate Tribunal's LocationDetailed Analysis1. Maintainability of Writ PetitionThe primary issue addressed was whether a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (D.R.A.T.) is maintainable in the Madras High Court when the original Tribunal is situated in another state. The judgment examined the decision in Bhanu Constructions Pvt. Ltd v. Andhra Bank, which held that the Madras High Court had no jurisdiction over the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad even though the Appellate Tribunal was located in Chennai.2. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226The court analyzed Article 226(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India, which grants High Courts the power to issue writs. It was emphasized that jurisdiction is determined by where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part. The judgment cited Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which clarified that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, it has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.3. Doctrine of Forum ConvenienceThe judgment highlighted the Doctrine of Forum Convenience, which allows a High Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if it is not the convenient forum for the case. This principle was discussed in the context of the Kusum Ingots case, where it was stated that even if a High Court has jurisdiction, it may choose not to exercise it based on convenience.4. Effect of Appellate Tribunal's LocationThe court examined whether the location of the Appellate Tribunal affects the jurisdiction of High Courts. It was concluded that the Appellate Tribunal's location within the territorial limits of the Madras High Court does confer jurisdiction to scrutinize the order passed by such Tribunal. The court referred to Article 226(2) of the Constitution, which allows High Courts to issue writs if the cause of action arises within their jurisdiction, regardless of the location of the authority.ConclusionThe judgment concluded that the decision in Bhanu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Andhra Bank was incorrect regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The Madras High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal located in Chennai. The court emphasized that the cause of action, which includes the order of the Appellate Tribunal, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The doctrine of forum convenience may still apply, allowing the court to refuse jurisdiction based on convenience, but this does not negate its inherent jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
