TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. ILR (2011) VI Delhi 729 to contend that even if the impugned order has been issued by an Authority and the same constitutes a part of cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in this Court, yet the same may not be a singular factor for this Court to decide the matter on merits and this Court can refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. 2. According to Ms. Acharya, there is no dispute that the part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court but keeping in view the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, which we reproduce hereunder, as the property is situated in Mumbai, the petitioner is also based in Mumbai, and finally it is the Bombay High Court to which an appeal shall lie from the order of the Appellate Authority, instead of two Courts applying its mind to the facts, it shall be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the Bombay High Court, as being forum conveniens. "42. Appeal to High Court.-Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 6 of the Act to contend that before 2009, the said Section contemplated the Central Government shall appoint one or more adjudicating authorities to exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred by or under this Act. The said Section has undergone an amendment whereby only one adjudicating authority has been contemplated, who is stationed in Delhi. According to Mr. Chaudhri, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the provisions of Section 5(1), 5(5), 8(3), 8(5) and 8(6) of the Act. That apart, they are seeking quashing of provisional attachment order No. 08/2018 dated June 20, 2018 / impugned original complaint No.998 of 2008 dated July 18, 2018 and show cause notice dated July 31, 2018. It is his submission that the notice to show cause under Section 8 of the Act has been issued by the adjudicating authority, based in Delhi. In other words, a part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi, for this Court to entertain the present writ petition, in terms of Para 33 (b) of the Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. (supra). 5. It is his submission that cause of action in PMLA cases, is not related to the place of investigation or place of a property an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y totally ignoring the concept of forum conveniens. (b) 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, however, the cause of action has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case of Alchemist Ltd. (supra). (c) An order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated. Yet, the same may not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (d) The conclusion that where the appellate or revisional authority is located constitutes the place of forum conveniens as stated in absolute terms by the 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 226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked in a malafide manner is too restricted / constricted as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellate authority is located in another State, a writ petition would be maintainable in both the Courts and also that it is the petitioner who has a right to choose his forum, which need to be respected. The Division Bench clarified that normally in such circumstances, writ petition 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. 10. Mr. Chaudhri may be right in contending that the notice under Section 8 of the Act has been issued by the Authority in Delhi, so jurisdiction is there for this Court to entertain the writ petition. But merely because a part of cause of action has arisen under the jurisdiction of this Court, whether this Court needs to exercise its jurisdiction is the question need to be answered. This Court is of the view "that it should not", for more than one reason; that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is based in Mumbai. The provisional attachment order has been passed in Mumbai. The complaint though, filed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he filing of the original complaint as contemplated under Section 5(5) of the Act before the Adjudicating Authority which is located in Delhi that the impugned notice by the Adjudicating Authority has been issued from Delhi. Though a small fraction of a cause of action has definitely arisen in Delhi but before exercising the discretion of entertaining the present writ petition, this Court would per force be required to look to other factors as well including "forum convenience. 61. As has been stated earlier, but for the lodging of the original complaint, nothing has happened in Delhi. That apart, no final order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority and only notice to show cause as to how and with what available resource, the property which has been provisionally attached was purchased by the petitioner. The impugned notice, in the present case, no doubt, has serious fiscal/penal consequences in case the explanation offered by the petitioner is not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority. But entertaining a writ petition seeking quashment of the aforesaid notice would amount to exercising discretion in the matter of arrogating jurisdiction only by virtue of the location o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Court turned out to be a sterile exercise. Their Lordships observed that "the aggrieved person is treated to be the dominus litis, as a result whereof, he elects to file the appeal before one or the other High Court, the decision of the High Court shall be binding only on the authorities which are within its jurisdiction. It will only be of persuasive value on the authorities functioning under a different jurisdiction. If the binding authority of a High Court does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction and the decision of one High Court would not be a binding precedent for other High Courts or courts or tribunals outside its territorial jurisdiction, some sort of judicial anarchy shall come into play. An assessee, affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay, may invoke the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and which might suit him and thus he would be able to successfully evade the law laid down by the High Court at Bombay. ... It would give rise to the issue of forum shopping. ....For example, an assessee affected by an assessment order in Bombay may invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to take advanta....