Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL,AJIT PRAKASH SHAH
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
LPA No.109/2009
Decided On : 02-07-2009
JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION - CAUSE OF ACTION - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - INSURANCE - IRDA - INSURANCE ACT - ARTICLE 226 - ARTICLE 227 - CPC SECTION 20 - CONSTITUTION BENCH REFERENCE - FORUM CONVENIENS - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - APPELLATE ORDER - MERGER OF ORDERS - DOMINUS LITUS - STATUTORY APPEALS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS - HIGH COURT - POWER OF SUPERINTENDENCE - CONFLICT OF JUDGMENTS - INCONVENIENCE - SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF ACTION - SIGNIFICANT CAUSE OF ACTION - INFERIOR COURTS - JUDICIAL DISCRETION - WRIT JURISDICTION - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an insurance company, filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging an order passed by the Appellate Authority constituted by the Central Government under the Insurance Act. The Appellate Authority had directed the appellant to pay a certain sum of money to the respondent, an insured person, on account of a fire insurance claim. The appellant contended that the Delhi High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the substantial cause of action arose outside its territorial jurisdiction. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the significant part of the cause of action could not be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court merely because the order under challenge had been passed by the Appellate Authority located within its territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Division Bench referred the matter to a larger bench in view of the importance of the issue of jurisdiction and the correctness of several dicta of the Division Benches of the Delhi High Court being questioned. The larger bench held that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. The bench relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that when an order is passed by an appellate authority, a part of the cause of action arises at that place. The bench also held that the order of the Appellate Authority constituted a part of the cause of action and that the writ petition was maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it was situate. The bench further held that the principle of forum conveniens could not be invoked to refuse to exercise jurisdiction in the present case as the Appellate Authority was situated within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and there was no possibility of conflicting judgments or confusion.
Issues: 1. Whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority constituted by the Central Government under the Insurance Act? 2. Whether the substantial cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court? 3. Whether the order of the Appellate Authority constituted a part of the cause of action? 4. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Appellate Authority was situate? 5. Whether the principle of forum conveniens could be invoked to refuse to exercise jurisdiction in the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. 2. The substantial cause of action did not arise outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. 3. The order of the Appellate Authority constituted a part of the cause of action. 4. The writ petition was maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Appellate Authority was situate. 5. The principle of forum conveniens could not be invoked to refuse to exercise jurisdiction in the present case as the Appellate Authority was situated within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and there was no possibility of conflicting judgments or confusion.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The order passed by the learned single Judge was set aside. The writ petition was restored to file. The learned single Judge was requested to decide the writ petition expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.
1.This appeal is placed before this bench in view of the reference made by the Division Bench. The appeal arises from an order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition summarily on the ground that significant part of the cause of action could not be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court merely because the order under challenge had been passed by the Appellate Authority located within its territorial jurisdiction when the events leading to the filing of the proceedings before the Appellate Authority and the parties to such proceedings are located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The learned single Judge relying on various judgments including Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2007 (6) SCC 769, Bombay Snuff (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 125 (2005) DLT 605, Rajkumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director of Enforcement, Mumbai, 154 (2008) DLT 28 and West Coast Ingots (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, 2007 (209) ELT 343 (Delhi) held that going by the strict provisions of Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition, however, the basic issue was whether this Court really was the most appropriate Forum to decide the present petition considering that the significant part of the cause of action imperative for the effective settlement of disputes had not arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. The learned single Judge further held that any stand taken by him to the contrary would lie in the teeth of the consistent and settled approach adopted by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in various judgments referred to above.
2. When this matter came up for hearing before the Division Bench it was sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant that the view taken by the single Judge runs counter to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 2 SCC 671 and Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254. It was also contended that the decisions in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) and Bombay Snuff
(P) Ltd. v Union of India and Ors. (supra) relied upon by the learned single Judge dealt with statutory appeals and the law as laid down therein could not be applied to a writ petition where the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A contention was also raised that the order of the original authority merged in the order of the Appellate Authority and thus the courts in Andhra Pradesh could have no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, which challenged the order of the Appellate Authority located in Delhi. In this regard, reference was made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Kishore Rungta and Ors. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., 2003 (151) ELT 502 (Bom) and the decision of this Court in Indian Institute of Technology v. P.C.Jain and ors., 45 (1991) DLT 42. Further relying on Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. UOI, AIR 1961 SC 532, it was urged that in any case the writ petition was maintainable in Delhi under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India as the seat of the Appellate Authority was in Delhi. The Division Bench felt that the issue of jurisdiction is of considerable importance and since correctness of several dicta of the Division Benches of this Court was questioned, deemed it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench.
3. We, therefore, proceed to deal with the limited question of jurisdiction. We are at present not concerned with merits of the disputes between the parties, for the matter has not yet been heard on merits. It is, therefore, not necessary to set out the facts in detail. It is, however, necessary to examine the scope and nature of proceedings before the Appellate Authority, which led to the filing of the petition in this Court.
FACTS
4. The respondent No.3
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
