https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767057 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767057 Territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Arising a part of cause of action, and in his submission, material cause of action - Doctrine of forum non-conveniens - Rejection of an application seeking Advance Authorisation for those entities which would fall within the jurisdiction of DGFT Office, Hyderabad - HELD THAT:- It is relevant to note that the doctrine of forum non-conveniens had its origins in Scotland where the Court applied this doctrine as an extension to the plea of forum non-competens, as the parties were not residents of Scotland as held in the case of Vernor vs. Elvies; 6 Disct. Of Dec. 4788 (1610). Thereafter, it appears to have been adopted by the American Courts which developed it further and which was also applied by the Courts in England. Coming closer to home, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots [ 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT ] recognised this doctrine and had in fact referred to some judgements rendered by the High Court of Calcutta to opine that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merits. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. Therefore, the argument that this Court can entertain the writ petition since some part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi, would not, ipso facto, confer jurisdiction on this Court, if one were to apply the authoritative ratio above. Whether this Court would be compelled to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition? - HELD THAT:- The Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Goa [ 2023 (3) TMI 683 - SUPREME COURT] was examining a case where the State of Goa had levied a tax in respect of lottery business being run by the respondent before it in Goa. However, the respondent company was located in the State of Sikkim. Aggrieved by such levy, the respondent company had filed a writ petition before the High Court at Sikkim. The Apex Court opined that the immediate civil consequence arising from the notification impugned therein was that tax @ 14% which was to be paid by the respondent company at Goa. No consequence or effect was felt in Sikkim. In fact it was noticed by the Hon ble Supreme Court that pleadings did not reflect any adverse consequence within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Sikkim. Conclusion - This Court would not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition nor would it be the forum conveniens to decide the lis. Petition dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530