TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (3) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d initiate disciplinary proceedings against respondents Nos. 5 and 6 for irregularities. The Union of India, Central Vigilance Commission (though mistakenly shown as "Chief Vigilance Commission") and the cm are joined as respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and the rest of respondents Nos. 2, 5 and 6 are from Mumbai. Learned counsel has fairly stated that the cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. However, according to him, the head office of the CBI is situated at Delhi and therefore this court will have jurisdiction. He further submitted that the office of the Vigilance Commission is also situated at Delhi and, therefore, this court will have jurisdiction. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were working at the relevant time at Mumbai. It is alleged that while working as officers of the Government, they took advantage of their position and obtained pecuniary benefit either for themselves or for others. It is submitted that though the flats were available, one of the respondents, namely, respondent No.5, did not occupy the available flat but he took a flat in a posh locality for Rs. 15,000 per month as rent plus a fixed deposit of Rs. 2 crores without any interest. Later on, the landlord agreed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application as in this case, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to 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 principle then we see that none of the facts pleaded in para. 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 Ahmed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garh court upheld the contention and this court affirmed the said view. While dealing with the averment that the plaintiff was carrying on business of the firm from Chandigarh where the branch office of the firm was situate this court held that there is no averment that the branch at Chandigarh was started with the consent of the other partners and intimation thereof was given to the Registrar of Firms as required by section 61 of the Partnership Act; the mere printing of stationery was neither here nor there and therefore no part of the cause of action could be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chandigarh court." Thus it is very clear that the High Court at Delhi will have no jurisdiction where the cause of action has arisen outside the territorial limits of Delhi and within the territorial limits of another State, namely in the instant case, State of Maharashtra. The apex court deeply regretted and deprecated the practice of exercising jurisdiction and passing interlocutory orders in matters where it lacked territorial jurisdiction and while allowing the appeal, preferred by ONCC directed NICCO to pay costs of Rs. 50,000. In the case of Navincha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al jurisdiction of the court, certain members of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however, trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire system to ridicule. We are greatly pained to say so but if we do not strongly deprecate the growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be failing in our duty to the institution and the system of administration of justice. We do hope that we will not have another occasion to deal with such a situation'." In para. 43, in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia [2000] 7 SCC 640, the court pointed out as under : "43. We make it clear that the mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of another State. Nor are we to be understood that any person can create a fake cause of action or even concoct one by simply jutting into t....