http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 7

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 9159 of 2003

PETITIONER:

M/s. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.

RESPONDENT:

Union of India and Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/04/2004

BENCH:

CJI, S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

S.B. SINHA, J :

INTRODUCTION

Whether the seat of the Parliament or the Legislature

of a State would be a relevant factor for determining the

territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a

judgment and order dated 25.7.2003 passed by the High Court

of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 4609 of 2003 holding that the said

Court has no jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The appellant is a company registered under the Indian

Companies Act. Its registered office is at Mumbai. It

obtained a loan from the Bhopal Branch of State Bank of

India. The respondent No. 2 issued a notice for repayment

of the said loan from Bhopal purported to be in terms of the

provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Questioning the vires of the said Act, the said writ

petition was filed before Delhi High Court by the appellant

herein which was dismissed on the ground of lack of

territorial jurisdiction.

Submissions

The only submission made on behalf of the appellant

before the High Court as also before us is that as the

constitutionality of a parliamentary act was in question,

the High Court of Delhi had the requisite jurisdiction to

entertain the writ petition.

On the other hand, the contention of the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is that as no

cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of

the High Court of Delhi, the writ petition has rightly not

been entertained.

Cause of Action:

Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material

facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and

prove constitutes the cause of action. Cause of action is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 7

not defined in any statute. It has, however, been

judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact

which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if

traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of

the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything

which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right

to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its

importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has

to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ

petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily.

Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India

reads thus:

"(2) The power conferred by clause (1)

to issue directions, orders or writs to

any Government, authority or person may

also be exercised by any High Court

exercising jurisdiction in relation to

the territories within which the cause

of action, wholly or in part, arises for

the exercise of such power,

notwithstanding that the seat of such

Government or authority or the residence

of such person is not within those

territories."

Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as

under:

"20 OTHER SUITS TO BE INSTITUTED WHERE

DEFENDANT RESIDE OR CAUSE OF ACTION

ARISES.

Subject to the limitation aforesaid,

every suit shall be instituted in a

court within the local limits of whose

jurisdiction -

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in

part, arises."

Although in view of Section 141 of the Code of Civil

Procedure the provisions thereof would not apply to a writ

proceedings, the phraseology used in Section 20(c) of the

Code of Civil Procedure and Clause (2) of Article 226,

being in pari materia, the decisions of this Court rendered

on interpretation of Section 20(c) of CPC shall apply to the

writ proceedings also. Before p