Writ appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, parties advised to approach appropriate court for relief.

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ appeal due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, advising the appellant to approach the High Court of Karnataka. The court emphasized that jurisdiction should be based on statutory provisions rather than the convenience of the parties. The dismissal was solely on jurisdictional grounds, without addressing the merits of the case, leading to the connected CMP being dismissed as well.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.
2. Application of the doctrine of dominus litis.
3. Relevance of the situs of the Settlement Commission.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The primary issue in this case was whether the Madras High Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Settlement Commission, which is situated in Chennai. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, relying on precedents such as Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India, R.T. Industries vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission, and West Coast Ingots (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi. The court reiterated that the situs of the Settlement Commission alone does not confer jurisdiction on the High Court if the cause of action arises outside its territorial limits.

2. Application of the Doctrine of Dominus Litis:
The appellant argued that the doctrine of dominus litis, which allows a suitor to choose the forum, should apply as a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The appellant contended that since the Settlement Commission is located in Chennai and has jurisdiction over multiple states, including Karnataka, where the appellant is registered, the writ petition should be maintainable. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the doctrine of dominus litis does not apply in this context. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction should be determined based on statutory provisions and not merely on the convenience of the parties.

3. Relevance of the Situs of the Settlement Commission:
The court referred to previous decisions, including Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, to clarify that the situs of the appellate Tribunal or Settlement Commission is not the sole determinative factor for jurisdiction. The court highlighted that if jurisdiction were based solely on the location of the Tribunal, it could lead to judicial anarchy, with different High Courts potentially issuing conflicting decisions. The court concluded that the appropriate High Court for jurisdiction is the one where the original authority or first appellate authority is located, in this case, the High Court of Karnataka, as the appellant's assessment and appellate authorities are situated in Bangalore.

Conclusion:
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ appeal on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, leaving it open for the appellant to approach the High Court of Karnataka. The court clarified that the dismissal was solely based on jurisdictional grounds and did not address the merits of the appellant's case. Consequently, the connected CMP was also dismissed.

---