Territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens led the High Court to decline writ petitions against Maharashtra depositors law notices.

Writ petitions challenging attachment-related notices under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act were held not maintainable in the Punjab and Haryana High Court because the impugned action arose from proceedings pending in Maharashtra and the authorities in Chandigarh and Haryana had acted only on communications from the competent Maharashtra authority. The Court applied the principle of territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens, and declined to entertain the petitions in its writ jurisdiction. The petitioners were left free to pursue their objections before the appropriate forum. A similar jurisdictional view had already been taken in connected litigation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging attachment-related notices issued under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 were maintainable before this Court in view of the jurisdictional objection.

Analysis: The notices were issued pursuant to action taken under the Maharashtra enactment by the authorities of the State of Maharashtra. The impugned measures related to proceedings pending at Mumbai under the Act, while the authorities in Chandigarh and Haryana had only acted on communications received from the competent authority in Maharashtra. In these circumstances, the Court held that no sufficient ground existed for entertaining the petitions in its territorial jurisdiction. The Court also noted that a similar jurisdictional view had already been taken in connected litigation, and that the petitioners had been left free to raise their contentions before the appropriate forum.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable before this Court on the jurisdictional ground and were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the impugned action emanates from proceedings under a State statute and the effective forum is the court having jurisdiction over those proceedings, another High Court may decline to entertain a writ petition on the principle of forum conveniens.

---