TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding the case to the Chandigarh bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the Tribunal also granted one week‟s time to the respondents to file the reply. 2. The petitioner had filed the petition before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi being O.A No.321/2011 seeking to quash the communication dated 13th May, 2011 rejecting the statutory complaint dated 22nd September, 2010 in respect of the adverse ACR for the year 2008-2009. 3. The petitioner had contended that he had filed an original petition before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in which notice was issued and the matter was taken up by the Principal Bench on several occasions. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal, however, took a com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdiction. 6. The petitioner categorically asserted that since the petitioner had filed a statutory petition against the adverse ACRs of the years 2008 and 2009 and that the Chief of Army Staff by letter dated 13th May, 2011 had rejected his statutory petition, therefore, the Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal shall have jurisdiction. The petitioner especially contended that the petitioner and his counsel had the impression that had the respondent filed the reply, the petition would have been disposed of on 19th December, 2011 itself. According to the petitioner, the decision of the High Court in the case of Colonel Sarat Chandra Mishra (supra) was in rem and not in personam. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent, Dr.Ashwani Bh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn 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 findi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dure) Rules, 2008 is as under:- "6. Place of filing application: (1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by the applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction- (i) The applicant is posted for the time being, or was last posted or attached; or (ii) Where the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen: Provided that with the leave of the Chairperson the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under section 14 or section 15 of the Act, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), a person who has ceased to be in serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Armed Forces Tribunal. Thus none of the ingredients as detailed in Rule 6 have been satisfied and therefore, the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter. 11. The learned counsel has further contended that as part of the cause of action under Rule 6 will arise within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal as the statutory complaint was filed by the petitioner to the Chief of Army Staff at Delhi and the same was rejected there. However, as it has been held in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. (supra) that the place where the appellate authority decides the appeal or the petition of an employee does not form a factor to ascertain the forum conveniens. This plea o....