High Court lacks jurisdiction to review NCLT Ahmedabad order; emphasizes original order location

The High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging the National Company Law Tribunal's order passed in Ahmedabad, as no original order was issued in Madhya Pradesh. The NCLT at Ahmedabad had jurisdiction over cases previously under NCLT, Indore. The High Court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner liberty to seek relief from the appropriate forum. The decision was based on legal precedents emphasizing the location of the original order and the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition challenging the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal at Ahmedabad.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company based in Bhopal, challenged an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal at Ahmedabad. The petitioner argued that the cause of action arose in Madhya Pradesh, giving the High Court jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The petitioner cited the transfer of jurisdiction from NCLT, Indore to NCLT, Ahmedabad as per a notification by the Central Government. Referring to legal precedents, the petitioner emphasized that the situs of the Tribunal should not divest the High Court of jurisdiction.

The High Court analyzed the jurisdiction issue based on previous judgments. In the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that even if a part of the cause of action arises within a specific jurisdiction, the High Court where the cause of action arose can entertain the petition under Article 226. Similarly, in Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court in the State where the original order was passed should have jurisdiction over the matter, even if the Appellate Authority is located in another State.

However, in the present case, the High Court found that no original order was passed in Madhya Pradesh and the NCLT at Ahmedabad, by virtue of the Central Government's notification, had jurisdiction over cases that would have been tried by NCLT, Indore. Therefore, the High Court of Gujarat was deemed to have jurisdiction to entertain the petition challenging the NCLT's order. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction but granted the petitioner liberty to seek relief from the appropriate forum.

In conclusion, the High Court's decision was based on the lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition challenging the NCLT's order passed at Ahmedabad, as no original order was issued in Madhya Pradesh, and the NCLT at Ahmedabad had jurisdiction over cases previously under NCLT, Indore. The legal analysis relied on previous judgments to determine the appropriate High Court's jurisdiction based on the location of the original order and the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

---