2021 (7) TMI 1402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No.1/National Company Law Tribunal is situated at Ahmedabad and outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Today this case has been fixed to decide the question whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. This Court is not going in depth into the merits of the case, but however, it is necessary to give a brief background on the factual aspects of the case. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company having its registered office at Bhopal. It is engaged in the business of constructing roads, commercial and non-commercial buildings, houses for the poor and executes works for the Government. The petitioner Company is a sub-contractor for M/s GVR Infra Projects Limited and it entered into a c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Law Tribunal at Ahmedabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued with much vehemence that mere situs of the Tribunal would not divest this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, as according to him, the cause of action as arisen at Madhya Pradesh and merely because the Tribunal is situated at Ahmedabad, it cannot be said that this Court has no jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to several judgments. The first judgment he has referred to is [Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another], (2004) 6 SCC 254. The brief background of the case before the Supreme Court would be essential to appreciate the ratio laid down by it. In that case, Kusum Ingots, which was the appellant/Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gment that has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is [Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise] (2007) 6 SCC 769. In this case, before the Supreme Court the issue that was examined was the determination of appropriate High Court which could hear a writ petition against an order passed by an Appellate Tribunal exercising jurisdiction over several States. The factual background in that case was that the appellant who carried on business at Lucknow and was assessed at Lucknow, filed an appeal which was heared by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CESTAT") at New Delhi. The Tribunal exercised the jurisdiction in respect of cases arising within the territorial li....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iginal order was situated in another State. The same is the position in the case before the Delhi High Court reported in 2012 SCC Online Del 5264 [M/s Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others]. In that case, the Delhi High Court following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Industries (supra) held likewise. However, in the case at hand the factual aspects are different. Undisputedly, no original order has been passed by any authority in the State of Madhya Pradesh which was taken to the NCLT at Ahmedabad by the aggrieved party. Merely because the petitioner is situated in Madhya Pradesh or the fact that the NCLT at Ahmedabad which passed the impugned order on account of notification passed by the....