TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r quashing of aforesaid order, wherein investigation under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 has been directed to be initiated against Petitioner-company. (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside Notice issued vide DIN (Annexure-8) including all subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto, wherein investigation pursuant to direction of Respondent No.1 has been initiated under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 against Petitioner-company by Respondent-Serious Fraud Investigation Office (hereinafter referred to as 'SFIO' for short). (iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ of Declaration declaring that passing of order under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 directing 'SFIO' to carry out investigation against Petitioner-company, is beyond the scope of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, as formation of opinion is vitiated having been arrived at despite 'non-existence of any relevant circumstances'. (iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs situated at New Delhi, the investigation is being carried out by Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Kolkata and the registered office of the petitioner is situated at Ranchi and, therefore, all the said places have conferment of jurisdiction as part cause of action had accrued in the said places and, therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this writ application. Mr. Das has referred to the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254, Alchemist Ltd v. State Bank of Sikkim & Ors. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 335, Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 and Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2026 Live Law (SC) 616. 6. The substratum of the invocation by the petitioner of the jurisdiction of this Court is the registered office of the petitioner being situated at Ranchi. The consistent opposition of the respondents is that solely on the basis of the Headquarters situated at Ranchi, this Court would not have the jurisdiction to entertain this writ application, especially in the backdrop of the place where the project is situated, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich concluded that merely because the Head office of the company was situated in the State of West Bengal, the same by itself would not confer any jurisdiction upon the Calcutta High Court, particularly when the head office had nothing to do with the order of punishment passed against the concerned employee. 9. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (Supra), it has been held as follows: "9. Although in view of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions thereof would not apply to writ proceedings, the phraseology used in Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and clause (2) of Article 226, being in pari materia, the decisions of this Court rendered on interpretation of Section 20(c) CPC shall apply to the writ proceedings also. Before proceeding to discuss the matter further it may be pointed out that the entire bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved before the petitioner can obtain a decree is the material facts. The expression material facts is also known as integral facts. 10. Keeping in view the expressions used in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Civil Procedure the provisions thereof would not apply to writ proceedings, the phraseology used in Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and clause (2) of Article 226, being in pari materia, the decisions of this Court rendered on interpretation of Section 20(c) CPC shall apply to the writ proceedings also. Before proceeding to discuss the matter further it may be pointed out that the entire bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved before the petitioner can obtain a decree is the material facts. The expression material facts is also known as integral facts. 10. Keeping in view the expressions used in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter." Their Lordships further observed as under: (Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. case [(2004) 6 SCC 254], SCC p. 264, paras 29-30) "29. In view of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, now if a part of cause of action arises outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, it would have j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad." 14. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India [(2006) 6 SCC 207 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 24], answering a similar question this Court observed that on a plain reading of clause (2) of Article 226 it is manifestly clear that the High Court can exercise power to issue direction, order or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose if the cause of action in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territory. In para 7 this Court observed: (SCC p. 210) "7. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." 16. Regard being had to the discussion made hereinabove, there cannot be any doubt that the question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limit of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court's jurisdiction." 12. Recently in the case of Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr. (Supra), the following observations were made: "30. ... even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (emphasis ours) 34. Notwithstanding that the appellant could have approached any of the three high courts based on accrual of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h reads as follows: "210. Investigation into affairs of company.- (1) Where the Central Government is of the opinion, that it is necessary to investigate into the affairs of a company,- (a) on the receipt of a report of the Registrar or inspector under Section 208; (b) on intimation of a special resolution passed by a company that the affairs of the company ought to be investigated; or (c) in public interest, it may order an investigation into the affairs of the company. (2) Where an order is passed by a court or the Tribunal in any proceedings before it that the affairs of a company ought to be investigated, the Central Government shall order an investigation into the affairs of that company. (3) For the purposes of this section, the Central Government may appoint one or more persons as inspectors to investigate into the affairs of the company and to report thereon in such manner as the Central Government may direct." 16. This provision empowers the Central Government under various circumstances enumerated therein to order an investigation into the affairs of the company and as per Section 212 of the Companies Act, ....