2024 (1) TMI 1520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shahdara District, New Delhi, under the provisions of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ("the 2006 Act"). 3. It is contended that the District Magistrate did not have jurisdiction or authority to assume such jurisdiction. For such purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a notification issued by the Industries Department of New Delhi dated July 30, 2007 which designates the members of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Council ("the MSME Council") of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. 4. It is pointed out that the concerned District Magistrate is not a part of the said MSME Council and, as such, the assumption of jurisdiction by him is ex facie barred. 5. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r appointed. 9. It is further argued that the impugned communication by the District Magistrate was received by the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. That apart, several correspondences were initiated by the petitioner, also from the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The impugned decisions of the respondent authorities were all received by the petitioner, also within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 10.Thus, it is argued that a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as contemplated in Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. 11.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3, at the outset, takes an objection as to the territorial juris....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut arises out of allegedly erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the District Magistrate at Shahdara, Delhi and thereafter reference to arbitration by the MSME Council, also at Delhi. 19.Since the seats of the conciliation as well as the subsequent reference to arbitration under Section 18 of the 2006 Act are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of New Delhi, the conspectus of the present challenge being such assumption of jurisdiction, the correspondence or the situs of such correspondence pales into insignificance while determining territorial jurisdiction. 20.Insofar as the cause of action is concerned, a note of caution is to be introduced herein. There is a distinction between the cause of action of the main arbitrable ....