TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (10) TMI 321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 of the Import Export Policy introduced by the appellants herein w.e.f. 1st April, 1995 in relation to certain credits to be given on export of Shrimps, the appellant firstly challenges before us the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad to entertain the civil applications and grant relief in favour of the respondents. 3. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General of India and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the High Court at Ahmedabad did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the special civil applications since no part of the cause of action based on which the applications were filed arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Ahmedabad. They contended that though this ground was specifically urged, the High Court wrongly placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. & Ors. [1984 (2) SCC 646] rejected the said objection of the appellants and granted the relief which, of course, the appellants contend even on merits is not liable to be granted. They contend that since the question of jurisdi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sen within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. This Honourable Court has therefore, jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of this Petition." 7. The appellants herein while opposing the civil applications had specifically pleaded that the Courts at Ahmedabad did not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claims of the respondents since no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Ahmedabad. In their statement of objection rebutting the pleadings of the respondents, the appellants had contended thus :- "With reference to para 16 of the petition, I say that since the Pass Book Licence was issued at Chennai by the designated authority at Chennai and the transactions concerning the said pass book were made from Chennai port and cause of action is lying at Chennai, it is in order that the case is transferred to the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras at Chennai notwithstanding the petitioners having their office at Ahmedabad from where the export import planning work was being executed." 8. From the above, it is seen that the appellants had taken a serious objection as to the ter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her the writ petition was filed by design or accident in the Calcutta High Court when the office of the Company is in the State of Punjab and all the principal respondents are in Delhi." 11. It is in that context of noticing the motive of the parties concerned in that case in choosing a forum, the above observation as to the place of the registered office of the Company was incidentally made in the judgment. Having perused the judgment in Oswal's case (supra), we are of the opinion that that judgment is no authority to decide as to the requirement of law in regard to establishing the territorial jurisdiction of a court. We must say in all fairness, Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel, has not placed any reliance on this judgment nor on the basis of the finding of the High Court in this case in regard to its territorial jurisdiction. He, however, contends that from the facts narrated in the civil applications, more so in Paragraph 16 of the application, it is crystal clear that a substantial part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the High Court at Ahmedabad. He pointedly referred to the bundle of facts mentioned in Paragraph 16 of the application as al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the credit in the pass- book will affect the business of the respondents at Ahmedabad; (vi) respondents have executed a bank gurantee through their bankers at Ahmedabad as well as a Bond at Ahmedabad. 14. Though it is also contended in para 16 of the application that the appellants have their office at Ahmedabad, that contention has not been pressed since it is clear from the records that none of these appellants have their office at Ahmedabad. De hors this fact, if we take into consideration the order facts enumerated hereinabove in support of the cause of action pleaded by the respondents, it is seen that none of these facts is in any way connected with the relief sought for by the respondents in their civil applications so as to constitute the cause of action at Ahmedabad. 15. Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India which speaks of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court reads :- "The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned. If we apply this principal then we see that none of the facts pleaded in Paragraph 16 of the petition, in our opinion, fall into the category of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad. 18. As we have noticed earlier, the fact that the respondents are carrying on the business of export and import or that they are receiving the export and import orders at Ahmedabad or that their documents and payments for exports and imports are sent/made at Ahmedabad, has no connection whatsoever with the dispute that is involved in the applications. Similarly, the fact that the credit of duty claimed in respect of exports that were made from Chennai were handled by the respondents from Ahmedabad have also no connection whatsoever w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e construed as being a factor giving rise to a cause of action. In the case of ONGC (supra), this Court negatived the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents therein that either the acquisition of knowledge made through media at a particular place or owning and having an office or property or residing at a particular place, receiving of a fax message at a particular place, receiving telephone calls and maintaining statements of accounts of business, printing of letterheads indicating branch offices of the firm, booking of orders from a particular place are not the factors which would give rise to either wholly or in part cause of action conferring territorial jurisdiction to Courts. In the said case, this Court also held that the mere service of notice is also not a fact giving rise to a cause of action unless such notice is an integral part of the cause of action. 20. Mr. Desai, however, placed reliance on a recent judgment of this Court in Navinchandra v. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein this Court had held that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. It is to be noted that in the said petition, among other re....