High Court Of Calcutta
BHAGAWATI PRASAD BANERJEE
KAJARIA EXPORTS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
. . Of .
Decided On : 11/20/1984
JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION - CAUSE OF ACTION - PARTLY ARISING WITHIN COURT'S JURISDICTION - REQUIREMENT - IMPORT LICENCE ISSUED BY DELHI AUTHORITY - GOODS IMPORTED THROUGH BOMBAY PORT - CLEARANCE REFUSED BY BOMBAY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES - WRIT PETITION FILED IN CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - WHETHER MAINTAINABLE - HELD, NO - COURT LACKS JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company imported electric generators through Bombay Port under an import license issued by the Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi. The Customs authorities at Bombay refused to clear the goods on the ground that they were not covered by the license. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court challenging the actions of the respondents, whose offices were situated outside the jurisdiction of the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The court noted that the import license was issued by an authority whose office was situated in Delhi, the goods were imported through Bombay Port, and the Customs authorities who refused to clear the goods were located in Bombay. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the fact that its registered office was in Calcutta and that it had made correspondence with the foreign sellers from Calcutta was sufficient to establish jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the actions of the respondents, whose offices were situated outside the jurisdiction of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cause of action in a writ petition arises where the material facts on which the petition is founded occur. In the instant case, the material facts included the issuance of the import license by an authority in Delhi, the importation of the goods through Bombay Port, and the refusal of the Customs authorities in Bombay to clear the goods. None of these facts occurred within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. The court also vacated all interim orders passed in the case.
( 1 ) THIS Writ application was moved by the petitioners before this Hon'ble Court during vacation and it appears that Shri S. Kundu, learned Advocate appeared for the respondents before the learned vacation Judge on Oct. 18, 1984. The Writ petition was moved and an interim order was passed for release of a large consignment of portable electric generators which were lying in Bombay Port The learned vacation Judge while issuing the interim order directed the petitioner to pay the entire amount of duties in respect of the goods in question covered by the licence mentioned in Annex.-'a' to the Petition to the Customs Authorities. It also appears that Shri S. Kundu, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, also gave an undertaking before the learned vacation Judge that if the Writ petitioners' succeed then the respondent authorities would make an order for refund of the disputed amount paid by the petitioners in the proceeding together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum even though there was no dispute with regard to the rate of Customs duty involved in the writ petition. It was further directed by the learned vacation Judge that upon payment of necessary duties including the disputed amount by the Writ petitioners, the respondents would release the goods within a week thereafter and issue wharfage/demurrage exemption certificate from the date of the landing till the date of clearance in the forms acceptable to the concerned authorities. The petitioners were given liberty to apply for further orders at the time of the hearing of the application before, the appropriate Bench, The learned vacation Judge by the order dated Oct 18, 1984, directed the said writ application to appear as Contested application on Oct. 30, 1984 before the appropriate Bench. Thereafter the matter was mentioned before this Court on. Nov. 6, 1984, when Mr. Subrata Roychowdhury, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, drew the attention of this Court that the petitioners under the garb of a licence for import of spare parts of machinery/instruments had imported complete sets of electric generators which were not covered by the licence and as such the petitioners were not entitled to get delivery of the said goods particularly when the authorities had initiated and/or are contemplating to initiate adjudication proceedings. On the basis of such submission, I passed an order on Nov. 6, 1984, directing the matter to come up for bearing on Nov. 9, 1984. In the meantime I directed the parties to maintain status quo. Thereafter the respondent authorities filed application for vacating and/or variation of the interim order dated Oct. 18, 1984, passed by learned vacation Judge and in the said application the respondents took preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Writ Petition in this High Court before passing any further order in the matter and/or to deal with merits of the case, I think that the preliminary point regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the matter as taken by the learned Counsel Mr. S Roychowdhury, should be decided first in as much as if the preliminary point is answered in favour of the respondents, in that event, I am not required to go into the merits of the case. The admitted facts are that the offices of all the respondents are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court The import licence in question was issued by the Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi which is Annex.-'a' to the Writ Petition and that on the basis of such Import Licence, the petitioner, on the strength of a letter of authority imported the goods through the Bombay Port and goods were lying at the Bombay Port According to the Writ petitioners, the Customs Authorities at Bombay refused to clear the goods on the ground that the goods were not covered by the Import licence. In the circumstances aforesaid, it has to be found out whether the cause of action or any part ther
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.