TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the present appeal preferred by the appellant. 2. The appellant is an establishment (since closed) which was the sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Neerav Khera. This establishment was providing security services and was having its office in Vadodara, Gujarat. It started its operation in the year 2002 and in October, 2002, the appellant applied for Provident Fund code number to the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO). Code number was allotted by the EPFO on 31.10.2002 with effect from 18.10.2002. According to the appellant, since it did not get any response from the market nor could get any business, in October, 2002 itself, the appellant relieved all the employees from their services and closed down the establishment in November, 2002. It is further the case of the appellant that he himself took employment with M/s SYSCON Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and is working there since November, 2002. However, unaware of the fact that with the closure of establishment, he was also required to surrender the Provident Fund code, he did not take any step in this direction. On 14.7.2006, the proprietor received summons from the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), Va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, discussion proceeded on the concept of 'forum conveniens' which runs as under: "30. From the aforesaid pronouncements, the concept of forum conveniens gains signification. In Black's Law Dictionary, forum conveniens has been defined as follows: "The court in which an action is most appropriately brought, considering the best interests and convenience of the parties and witnesses." 31. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the convenience of all the parties before it. The convenience in its ambit and sweep would include the existence of more appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for just adjudication of the controversy and such other ancillary aspects. The balance of convenience is also to be taken note of. Be it noted, the Apex Court has clearly stated in the cases of Kusum Ingots (supra), Mosaraf Hossain Khan (supra) and Ambica Industries (supra) about the applicability of the doctrine of forum conveniens while opining that arising of a part of cause of action would entitle the High Court to entertain the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Full Bench is not correct as it will vary from case to case and depend upon the lis in question. (e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226if only the jurisdiction is invoked in a malafide manner is too restricted/constricted as the exercise of power under Article 226 being discretionary cannot be limited or restricted to the ground of malafide alone. (f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinized by the High Court depending upon the factual matrix of each case in view of what has been stated in Ambica Industries (supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. (supra). (g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) "that since the original order merges into the appellate order, the place where the appellate authority is located is also forum conveniens" is not correct. (h) Any decision of this Court contrary to the conclusions enumerated hereinabove stands overruled." 5. What follows from the above is that the five-Judges Bench accepted the principle of forum convenien....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Appellate Tribunal." 7. Even in Sterling Agro (supra), it was nowhere said by the Court that Delhi Court will have no jurisdiction at all. We state at the cost of repetition that as per conclusion (b) contained in para 33 of Sterling Agro (supra), the Court accepted that even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this court, a writ petition would be maintainable before this Court. It was stated that order of the appellate tribunal constitutes a part of cause of action to make writ petition maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is constituted. However, what was clarified thereafter was that that should not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits and discretion lies with the High Court which may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In the present case, when it is found that the appellate authority, whose decision was challenged in this Court, is located in Delhi and therefore the conclusions (b) and (c) of para 33 would be applicable. Thus, order of the tribunal has furnished cause of action in Delhi and, therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the appellate authority. xxx xxx xxx 29. In view of Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India now if a part of cause of action arises outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, it would have jurisdiction to issue a writ. The decision in Khajoor Singh (supra) has, thus, no application. xxx xxx xxx 30. We must, however, remind ourselves 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 merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bagga v. Dewan J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d partly outside the specified 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. 37. To sum up, our conclusions are as follows. ......Fourth, the expression "cause of action" with regard to a civil matter means that it should be left to the litigant to institute cases at Lucknow Bench or at Allahabad Bench according to the cause of action arising wholly or in part within either of the areas. If the cause of action arises wholly within Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. Similarly, if the cause of action arises wholly outside the specified areas in Oudh then Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action in part arises in the specified Oudh areas and part of the cause of action arises outside the specified areas, it will be open to the litigant to frame the case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at Allahabad..... 38. Applications under Article 226 will similarly lie either at Lucknow or at Allahabad as the applicant wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of India. 11. It is thereafter that the Court went further and expounded the doctrine of forum conveniens with reference to a situation where original authority is in one State and the seat of the appellate authority is located in another State. Once it is categorically held in paras 25 to 27 that in such a case, the writ would be maintainable in both the Courts and also that it is the petitioner which has right to choose his forum, we are of the view that primacy to the freedom given to the petitioner needs to be respected. Therefore, we clarify that normally in such circumstances, writ would be maintainable at both the places and only in extreme cases where the Court finds that it is totally inconvenient for a Court to entertain the writ petition and the other High Court may be better equipped to deal with such a case then the doctrine of forum conveniens has to be applied. The directions of the Sterling Agro (supra) have to be understood in that manner alone, otherwise it would be negation of the principle stated in Kusum Ingots (supra), particularly paras 25 to 27 thereof. Though the doctrine of forum conveniens is accepted by the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots (supra) whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xercise by the other court of its jurisdiction." We may also quote the following passage from the judgment of US Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert: 330 U.S. 501: "The principle of forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even where jurisdiction is authorised by the letter of a general venue statute. These statutes are drawn with a necessary generality and usually give a plaintiff a choice of courts, so that he may be quite sure of some place in which to pursue his remedy. But the open door may admit those who seek not simply justice but perhaps justice blended with some harassment. A plaintiff sometimes is under temptation to resort to a strategy of forcing the trial at a most inconvenient place for an adversary, even at some inconvenience to himself." 13. It would be of interest to note that there is a debate as to whether doctrine of forum non conveniens is applicable domestically, i.e. in Municipal Laws or it is a concept of International Law and is to be applied only when two Courts of competent jurisdiction situate in two different jurisdictions/countries. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of the appellate authority which is the operative order and if the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ to the appellate authority it cannot issue a writ to the original authority. The question therefore is whether there is any difference between these two cases and the third case where the appellate authority dismisses the appeal and thus confirms the order of the original authority. It seems to us that on principle it is difficult to draw a distinction between the first two kinds of orders passed by the appellate authority and the third kind of order passed by it. In all these three cases after the appellate authority has disposed of the appeal, the operative order is the order of the appellate authority whether it has reversed the original order or modified it or confirmed it. In law, the appellate order of confirmation is quite as efficacious as an operative order as an appellate order of reversal or modification. Therefore, if the appellate authority is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court it seems difficult to hold even in a case where the appellate authority has confirmed the order of the original authority that the High Court can issue a writ ....