Madras High Court cannot usurp jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Common Order: (M. Karpagavinayagam, J.)

Andhra Bank and State Bank of India, Hyderabad, filed an application against M/s.Bhanu Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the guarantors, for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,95,86,510.79 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.460 of 1999. After enquiry, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, passed a decree in favour of the banks as against M/s. Bhanu Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the guarantors on 31.10.2000. The judgment debtors, feeling aggrieved that the decree was passed on merits without giving an opportunity to them, filed an application to set aside the said decree, terming the same as an exparte one. Some of them filed applications to set aside the exparte decree. Some others filed applications to condone the delay in filing the applications to set aside the exparte decree. Ultimately, on 06.09.2002, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissed the said applications. Aggrieved by that, they filed appeals before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, situated at Chennai. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Appellate Tribunal, dismissed the appeals. Hence, separate Writ Petitions have been filed by the judgment debtors, namely, M/s. Bhanu Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the guarantors in W.P.Nos.3386,18669,18670 and 18671 of 2003 before this Madras High Court.

2. Since all these Writ Petitions would deal with the same question, they are being disposed of by a common order.

3. The above Writ Petitions had come up for admission before the I Bench of this Court, which admitted the same and passed interim orders, granting stay of the decree, and issued notice to the banks, respondents 1 and 2 herein.

4. After service of notice, the respondents/banks filed a counter. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. R. Gowthama Narayanan, for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection that the Writ Petitions before this Madras High Court are not maintainable, since the subject matter of the Writ Petitions would deal with the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority, and, as such, the Andhra Pradesh High Court alone has jurisdiction.

5. In reply to the said contention, Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, for the petitioners, would submit that the Appellate Tribunal is situated at Chennai; as such, part of cause of action has arisen at Chennai and, therefore, this High Court at Chennai has got jurisdiction.

6. In the light of the rival contentions made by the respective counsel for the parties as referred to above, it would be appropriate to deal with the preliminary objection, regarding the jurisdiction, before dealing with the merits of the matter.

7. The principal question, that arises for consideration, is the following :

“Whether the petitioners are entitled to file Writ Petitions in this Madras High Court, even though the original orders were passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, merely because the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the said original orders, is situated at Chennai, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court?”

8. The core of the contention, urged by Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, is two fold, which is as follows :

(i) The order impugned is passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which is situated at Chennai, within the territory, in relation to which the Madras High Court exercises jurisdiction and, therefore, the Writ Petitions are maintainable under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India.

(ii) Though the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, was challenged before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, when the Appellate Tribunal at Chennai disposed of the appeal, the said order of the Tribunal at Hyderabad gets merged with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal; as such, the moment the order passed by the Appellate Tr