2020 (8) TMI 794

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the name of the Petitioner has been struck off from the Register of Companies. 3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, ld. CGSC takes a preliminary objection of territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the impugned order striking off the name of the company has been passed by the Registrar of Companies (hereinafter, 'ROC') in Chennai and not in Delhi. He relies upon three orders passed by the ld. Division Bench in Sanjay Agarwal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [W.P.(C) 7480/2018, decided on 29th January, 2019], Vishal Bhati v. Union of India & Anr. [W.P.(C) 9932/2018, decided on 24th September, 2018] and Prakash Chand Jain v. Union of India & Anr. [W.P.(C) 9975/2018, decided on 24th September, 2018] under similar circumstances, where the petitions have ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ttled. In Alchemist Ltd. & Ors. v. State Bank of Sikkim & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1812, the Supreme Court observed as under:- "28. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner-appellant, would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a 'part of cause of acti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ains to action taken by the Registrar of Companies, Kanpur and under identical situation with regard to action taken by Registrar of Companies, Mumbai on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction, we had refused to interfere into the matter earlier. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition also with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition before the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the matter". 9. In the present case the grievance of the Petitioner is not against the SFIO investigation. In fact, the Petitioner relies on the said investigation to argue that the name of the company cannot be struck off. Thus, the cause of action arose due to the act of the ROC in Chennai and not the Central Government's act of dire....