TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (3) TMI 944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Ors. (1999 4 SCC 382). Mr. Kamat also relied upon an unreported judgment of a learned single judge of this Court (H.L. Gokhale, J.) dated 22nd February, 2000 in the case of Guru Kripa C Plasticizers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Punjab National Bank. 3. At first blush the preliminary objection appeared to be well founded. However, as we shall demonstrate, the preliminary objection is not sustainable. The said decision of the Supreme Court has no application to the facts of this case. This becomes even more clear from the proceedings before the Supreme Court in that case which were produced before us. 4. We, therefore, proceed to deal with the limited question of jurisdiction. We are at present not concerned with the merits of the disputes between the parties for the matter has not yet been heard by us on merits. It is, therefore not necessary to set out the facts in detail. It is however necessary to examine the scope and nature of the proceedings before the DRAT which have led to the filing of the above petition. FACTS 5. The Petitioners were the promoters of Respondent No. 2. The second Respondent had entered into two loan agreements with the first Respondent fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (emphasis supplied) It will thus be noticed that in the case before the Supreme Court the Petitioner had challenged the vires of a notification and not the order of the DRAT adjudicating upon the disputes on merits before the parties. This is also clear from paragraph 5B of the Special Leave Petition which reads as under : "Because the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that by virtue of impugned notification issued by the Union of India, a Tribunal at Jabalpur was established to exercise jurisdiction in respect of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is submitted that the Petitioner has no other forum to impugne such a notification except by filing a writ in the Allahabad High Court. The jurisdiction of the Court which vested in Uttar Pradesh has been taken away by the Union of India arbitrarily by issuing the impugned notification and, therefore, only the High Court of Allahabad was the appropriate forum to challenge the said notification." Only the following questions of law were raised in the Special Leave Petition. "(a) Where the vires of a notification issued by the Central Government in respect of State of Uttar Pradesh are challenged then whether the Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act, and this appeal was dismissed in April, 1952. Thereupon the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Calcutta High Court. A question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to hear the petition. The matter was referred to a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Full Bench addressed itself to two questions viz. (i) whether any writ could issue against the Central Board of Revenue which was a party to the writ petition and which was permanently located outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, and (ii) whether if no writ could issue against the Central Board of Revenue any writ could be issued against the appellant, which was the original authority to pass the order under challenge, when the appellate authority (namely, the Central Board of Revenue) had merely dismissed the appeal. The Full Bench held that the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Central Board of Revenue. On the second question it held that as the Central Board of Revenue had merely dismissed the appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, the really operative order was the order of the appellant viz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmation". Applying the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court to the present case, the order of the DRT in Jaipur merged in the order of the DRAT, Mumbai. The Courts in Jaipur would have no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition which challenges the orders of the DRAT, Mumbai. This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to entertain the Petition. 14. In support of his submission that the cause of action would also arise where the consequences fell on the Petitioners, Mr. Tulzapurkar relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Damomal Kausomal Raisinghani v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1967 Bom. 355). In paragraph 5 the Division Bench held that even assuming that the impugned order was made by the third Respondent in New Delhi, the effect of the order fell on the Petitioner at Ulhasnagar where he resided and that the proceedings that would be taken against the Petitioner in consequence of the impugned order would be by officers located within the territory in relation to which this Court exercises jurisdiction. The Division Bench accordingly held that the place where the consequence of the order fell on the Petitioner would be a place whe....