TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioners herein, presumably on suspicion that these manufacturers might have formed a cartel. The matter was referred to the Director General constituted under the Act to investigate the alleged contraventions vis-a-vis the affairs of the cement manufacturers which are of concern of the Act. 1.2 This Court is informed that the Director General has since filed the report. It is in these circumstances, the second respondent, the Builders Association, had taken out an application on 07.12.2021 before the Commission for impleading themselves in the said proceedings. This petition was rejected by the Commission vide its order dated 29.12.2021. This order was assailed by the second respondent before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.8958 of 2022. The Delhi High Court, vide its order dated 26.09.2022, had granted liberty to the second respondent herein to approach the Competition Commission with a fresh petition for impleadment. Thereafter, on 27.09.2022, the second respondent filed his second application for impleadment, which was allowed vide order dated 05.07.2023. This order is now under challenge in these writ petitions. 1.3 It has also been brought to the notice of the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....]; Sajos Jewellers Vs Syndicate Bank [2007-4-LW-473]; PSA Sical Terminals Limited Vs Union of India [2009 (3) CTC 719]; M/s. Duro Flex Pvt. Limited Vs M/s. Duroflex Sittings Systems and another [2014-5-L.W.673]; M/s. Sun TV Network Ltd Vs Union of India & Others [2016-3-L.W.331]; Ex. Rect (MP) A. Madurai Veera No.7779447K Vs Union of India [2006 (1) CTC 732]; 2 Damomal Kauromal Raisingani Vs Union of India [1965 SCC OnLine Bom 129 :AIR 1967 Bom 355]; Shanthi Devi alias Shanti Mishra Vs Union of India and Others [(2020) 10 SCC 766]; Vodofone India Limited Vs The Competition Commission of India [W.P.No.8594 of 2017 & batch etc., of High Court of Bombay]; R.K. Singh Vs Union of India & Others [2002 (3) Mh.L.J561] Wills India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., and Others Vs. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority & Others [2011 Vol.113 (2) Bom.L.R.1115]; Sachin Chhotu Pawar Vs Collector, Raigad & Others [2020 (6)Mh.L.J.285]; Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India & Others [(2014) 9 SCC 329]; Sun TV Limited Vs Tata Sky Limited and another [2007-3-L.W.401] to canvass their rival case vis-a-vis the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. While the counsel for the petitioners claimed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s jurisdiction. The expression "cause of action" in the context of Article 226(2) was recently explained by the Supreme Court in State of Goa v Summit Online Trading Solutions Private Limited, [2023 SCC Online SC 254], in the following way: "16........ The expression 'cause of action' has not been defined in the Constitution. However, the classic definition of 'cause of action' given by Lord Brett in Cooke v. Gill that "cause of action means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court", has been accepted by this Court in a couple of decisions. It is axiomatic that without a cause, there cannot be any action. However, in the context of a writ petition, what would constitute such 'cause of action' is the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed. Determination of the question as to whether the facts pleaded constitute a part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, would necessarily involve an exercise by the high court to ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, const....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssages are as follows: "19. The High Court, in appropriate cases, can and should, examine the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action to see if some other High Court can be said to be dominantly connected with the cause of action rather than itself. In case the High Court comes to such a conclusion, then in my opinion, it would be improper for the writ petitioner to proceed in the High Court having a far less, and a mere slender connection with the cause of action. The writ petitioner in that case should be relegated to seek his remedy before that other High Court, having the dominantly larger connection. Just as a litigant is not permitted to choose his judge, so also shall a litigant not choose his High Court in the matter of presentation of his writ application. He shall approach that High Court only which has by far the largest connection with the facts giving rise to his grievance. 20. There might well be cases where the distinction becomes too fine, and two High Courts might both be said to have roughly similar connection with the cause of action. Making too fine a distinction in these matters, moreover, would work injustice to the petitioner, and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... second respondent as a party before the Commission. The order allowing impleadment of a party is, at best, a procedural order and it cannot possibly have any spill over effect in Tamil Nadu. The impugned order has merely granted that second respondent an opportunity of being heard in the matter and no more. (b) The proceedings have been initiated by the first respondent in Delhi. Initially, the second respondent had unsuccessfully attempted to implead itself before the 1st respondent. This led to the second respondent approaching the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.8958 of 2022, and it is only pursuant to the liberty granted by the Delhi High Court that the 2nd respondent approached the 1st respondent with another application for impleadment which has now been allowed by the 1st respondent. Thus, the issue of whether the 2nd respondent should or should not be a party was first examined by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 8958 of 2022. Having regard to the factual backdrop, and applying the principle of forum conveniens, this Court is of the considered view that the more convenient and natural forum for the parties is the High Court of Delhi and not the Madra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion." 8. Another crucial factor is that one of the cement manufacturers operating within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court has approached the said Court, challenging the very same order of the Competition Commission. The Delhi High Court has heard the matter and reserved the same for orders in Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Competition Commission of India and another [W.P.(C) No. 9854/2023]. Where another High Court has already taken cognizance of the same proceedings, then the doctrine of comity of courts comes into play. This requires that other High Courts, as a measure of deference, must refrain themselves from considering the same issue to avoid any possibility of conflicting judgments. In Phonographic Performance Limited v Union of India [2015 SCC Online Del 8511], the Delhi High Court was faced with a situation where writ petitions had been filed in a case where sta....