Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2007 (11) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... passed by Adjudicating authority at Mumbai and the appellate order was passed at Delhi by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CESTAT').  Reference was made to the decision of this Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. V. Union of India and Anr.  [2004 (6) SCC 254]. 3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment in Kusum Ingots (supra) is in favour of the appellant and on misreading of the decision the appeal has been dismissed.  Learned Additional Solicitor General, on the other hand, submitted that before moving the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Delhi High Court was moved, and at the request of the appellant, the High Court permitted to withdraw....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Nasiruddin v. STAT  [1975 (2) SCC 671], and U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P. [1995 (4) SCC 738].  So far as the decision of this Court in Nasiruddin's case (supra) is concerned, it is not an authority for the proposition that the situs of legislature of a State or the authority in power to make subordinate legislation or issue a notification would confer power or jurisdiction on the High Court or a Bench of the High Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact, this Court while construing the provisions of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 stated the law thus: (SCC p.   683, para 37) "37 . The conclusion as well as the reasoning of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cified Oudh areas, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings either at Allahabad or Lucknow. The court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the court is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action." 8. The said decision is an authority for the proposition that the place from where an appellate order or a revisional order is passed may give rise to a part of cause of action although the original order was at a place outside the said area. When a part of the cause of action arises within one or the other High Court, it will be for the petitioner to choose his forum. 9. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the ....