High Court jurisdiction clarified on customs adjudication orders challenge. Branch office presence not sole factor.

The High Court held that it did not have jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain writ petitions challenging customs adjudication orders, emphasizing the need for a reasonable nexus to its jurisdiction. The court clarified that the mere presence of a branch office in a particular location does not confer jurisdiction on the local High Court. Referring to relevant case law and the territorial aspects of the case, the court dismissed the writ petitions, advising the petitioner to seek remedy from the High Courts in Bombay or Gujarat instead of Madras.

---

---

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain writ petitions challenging orders of adjudication passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain writ petitions challenging orders of adjudication passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. The petitioner argued that since they have a branch office in Madras and the impact of the orders would be felt there, the High Court at Madras has jurisdiction. However, the respondent contended that the location of the branch office does not confer jurisdiction on the Madras High Court. The court examined the provisions of Article 226 and the territorial aspects of the case. The court referenced previous judgments to support its decision, emphasizing that the cause of action must have a reasonable nexus within the High Court's jurisdiction for it to entertain the petition.

The court highlighted the amendment to Article 226 by the 15th Amendment Act, 1963, which allows High Courts to exercise jurisdiction based on where the cause of action arises. The court noted that the location of the branch office alone is insufficient to establish jurisdiction. It referenced a Karnataka High Court case where it was held that the location of the company within the state does not automatically confer jurisdiction on the local High Court. The court also cited a Supreme Court case regarding land acquisition proceedings to emphasize the importance of territorial jurisdiction in such matters.

Additionally, the court referred to a judgment of the Bombay High Court where it was held that the jurisdiction to try a writ petition depends on where the business activities are carried out and where the consequences of the impugned order are felt. However, the court distinguished this case from the present one and aligned with the Karnataka High Court's decision regarding jurisdiction. The court concluded that the High Court at Madras does not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions, and the proper remedy for the petitioner would be to approach the High Court at Bombay or Gujarat. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed with no costs awarded.

---