Back
2021 Supreme(Cal) 331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Rajasekhar Mantha, J.
Kamsco Industries Private Limited and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
W.P.A. No. 12067 of 2021 with CAN 1 of 2021
Decided On : 15-12-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Senior Advocate, Mr. D.K. Sarkar, Mr. A. Deb, Ms. A. Daga, Mr. S.K. Sinha, Mr. Debashis Saha, Ms. Dipika Banu, Ms. Namrata Chatterjee, Mr. Souvik Dian
For the Respondent:Mr. Y. J. Dastoor, ASG, Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Mr. Rajashree Venket Kundalia, Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Ms. A. Agnihotri, Mr. Saubhik Chowdhury, Mr. Vividh Tandon, Mr. R.V. Goutham, Mr. Dripto Majumdar, Ms. Ayusmita Sinha, Ms. K. Kapadia, Mr. D. Das, Mr. Anubhav Sinha, Mr. Dipan Kr. Sarkar
Point of law : Dismissal of petition - no part of the cause of action of the petitioner, much less any integral part, has arisen within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta.
Headnote:
Order of proclamation and attachment and sale of the said share - territorial jurisdiction- expression, ‘cause of action’- Addition of parties.
Finding of the Court : Expression, ‘cause of action’ would essentially mean the entire bundle of facts that are required to be proved for the purpose of availing of a judicial remedy - no part of the cause of action of the petitioner, much less any integral part, has arisen within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta.
Result : Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Rajasekhar Mantha, J.
The judgment dated December 13, 2021 is mentioned for correction.
In view of a large number of typographical errors in the said judgment, the following judgment shall be read in its place and stead. The reasoning and conclusion remains unaltered.
CAN 1 of 2021
This application has been filed for addition of parties. The applicant is State Bank of India for itself and as a leader of a consortium of lenders to, inter alia, M/s. KAL. The applicants are necessary and proper parties. Hence, CAN 1/2021 is allowed. The said applicants shall be added as party-respondents to the instant writ petition.
Learned advocate on record of the applicants shall make necessary amendments in the cause title of the writ petition in course of the day.
CAN 1 of 2021 is allowed and disposed of.
W.P.A. No. 12067of 2021
1. By order dated 12th August, 2021, a Co-ordinate Bench, reserving the point of maintainability to be decided in course of final hearing, called for affidavits from the parties. This matter has been listed before this Court as a motion. The principal Respondents have not filed affidavits.
2. The respondent No. 4 has used affidavit-in-opposition. The Union as well as the State Bank of India prayed that this Court should first decide on the maintainability of the writ petition on the question of territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that affidavits are not needed for deciding the preliminary issue. The parties were duly notified and have made detailed submissions.
3. The facts of the case are, inter alia, that OA 766 of 2013 was filed by the State Bank of India against, ‘Kingfisher Airlines’, the ‘United Breweries (Holdings) Limited’, Dr. Vijay Mallya, Kingfisher Finvest (India) Ltd. and five others before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II at Bengaluru in the State of Karnataka. The said OA was decreed for a sum of Rs.6203,35,03,879.42/-.
4. An amended Recovery Certificate being RC No. 11395 of 2017 dated 10th April, 2017 came to be issued.
5. In the mean time, FIRs came to be lodged against defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in OA No. 766 of 2013. On 11th June, 2016 and 3rd September, 2016 the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued Provisional Orders attaching certain assets of M/s. UBL and UBHL under the provisions of PMLA Act, inter alia, held by the writ petitioners. On 7th January, 2019, the Recovery Officer of DRT at Bengaluru passed orders of attachment of the shares held by the petitioners in M/s. UBL, United Spirits Limited and McDowell Holdings Limited. In the meantime the corporate debtor UBHL was directed to be wound up by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court on 7th February 2017.
6. The said attached shares of the petitioners were put up sale in the Recovery Proceedings of the DRT. By a Sale Proclamation dated 7th June, 2021, the Recovery Officer of the DRT sold 3,96,44,346 equity shares in UBL to the 4th respondent M/s. Heineken N.V. in a block deal on the Bombay Stock Exchange duly approved by the SEBI.
7. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of proclamation and attachment and sale of the said shares. The writ petition has been filed in July, 2021. The petitioners have assailed the order of attachment dated 7th January, 2019, the order of Sale Proclamation dated 7th June, 2021 and the Recovery Certificate being RC No. 11395 of 2017 issued by the Recovery Officer of DRT at Bengaluru.
8. Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, would argue that the writ petitioners are located at and have their registered offices at Kolkata. The order of attachment of the shares of the petitioners was received and its effect felt at Kolkata. The writ petitioners are neither borrowers nor guarantors to the State Bank of India or any financial institution. The petitioners are separate corporate entities and Juristic persons and it, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioners are proxies for Dr. Vijay Mallya, the principal promoter of M/s. KAL.
9. In support of the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ peti
