Back
2007(8) Supreme 77
Supreme Court of india
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Dr. Arijit pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
M/s Canon Steels P. Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Commissioner of Customs — Respondent
Civil Appeal no. 5153 of 2007
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7645 of 2007]
Decided on 12-11-2007
(SCC p. 683, para 37),(AIR 1941 Cal 670), (AIR 1949 Cal 495), (1997 CWN 122) , S.S. (1994 (1) CHN 445) (AIR 1994 Del 126). relied upon.
Facts of the case :
Present appeal has been filed against orders passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing Customs Act Appeal filed under Section 130 of Customs Act and order passed in review application. High Court in impugned order had held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with matter as original order was passed by Adjudicating authority at Mumbai and appellate order was passed at Delhi by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Contention of Appellant that since cause of action arose at Chandigarh Punjab and Haryana High Court had jurisdiction.
Findings of the Court:
The Court held that Place from where an appellate order or a revisional order is passed may give rise to a part of cause of action although original order was at a place outside said area. When a part of the cause of action arises within one or the other High Court, it will be for the petitioner to choose his forum. Even if a small part of cause of action arises within territorial jurisdiction of High Court, same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling High Court to decide matter on merit. In appropriate cases, Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. Appellate order in this case was issued from CESTAT office at New Delhi. In that sense Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to deal with matter. Punjab & Haryana High Court was justified in its view as original adjudication order and appellate order were not issued by any authority within its territorial jurisdiction. However since no person should be left without a remedy. Hence, even though Customs Case No.6/04 was withdrawn by assessee, direction given for restoration of said as undisputably, Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
Result : Appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Judgment
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in this appeal is to the orders passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing the Customs Act Appeal No.4/2004, filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the ‘Act’) dated 8th May, 2006, and the order passed in review application dated 12.10.2006. The High Court held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the original order was passed by Adjudicating authority at Mumbai and the appellate order was passed at Delhi by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘CESTAT’). Reference was made to the decision of this Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.1, (2004 (6) SCC 254).
3.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment in Kusum Ingots (supra) is in favour of the appellant and on misreading of the decision the appeal has been dismissed. Learned Additional Solicitor General, on the other hand, submitted that before moving the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Delhi High Court was moved, and at the request of the appellant, the High Court permitted to withdraw the appeal (wrongly stated as writ petition).
4.The factual position is not in dispute. The adjudication order under the Act was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (EP Mumbai) and the appeal against that order was adjudicated by CESTAT. Against the order of CESTAT, Customs Appeal No.6/04 was filed before the Delhi High Court. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that prima facie, the High Court was of the view that the appeal was not maintainable before it and, therefore, the appellant withdrew the said appeal to file it before the appropriate High Court. Since the cause of action arose at Chandigarh it was submitted that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has jurisdiction.
5.At this juncture, it would be appropriate to take note of what has been stated by this Court in Kusum Ingots (supra).
6.The Court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction. An order passed on a writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act, whether interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act.
7.Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his argument would contend that the situs of framing law or rule would give jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court and in support of the said contention relied upon the decisions of this Court in Nasiruddin v. STAT2, (1975 (2) SCC 671), and U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P.3, (1995 (4) SCC 738). So far as the decision of this Court in Nasiruddin’s case (supra) is concerned, it is not an authority for the proposition that the situs of legislature of a State or the authority in power to make subordinate legislation or issue a notification would confer power or jurisdiction on the High Court or a Bench of the High Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact, this Court while construing the provisions of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 stated the law thus: (SCC p. 683, para 37).
“37.The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court is incorrect. It is unsound because the expression ‘cause of action’ in an application under Article 226 would be as the expression is understood and if the cause of action arose because of the appellate order or the revisional order which came to be passed at Lucknow then Lucknow would have jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the areas in Oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of the person applying for a writ. In such case an adverse appellate order might be the cause of action. The expression ‘cause of action’ is well known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specifie
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
