Dismissed

Sun Pharmaaceutical Industries Ltd. v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC23 Apr 2007WP/1534/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a Settlement Commission order under the Customs Act, exercised its discretion to decline territorial jurisdiction. Despite the respondent authority being physically in Mumbai, the substantial cause of action arose in Tamil Nadu. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice to the petitioner's rights to approach the appro

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; dismissal without prejudice to the petitioner's rights to approach the appropriate forum; no order as to costs.

Sun Pharmaaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION.

¶3

WRIT PETITION No. 1534 of 2006.

¶4

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.

¶5

..Petitioner.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶8

Mr Prakash Shah i/b P.D.S. Legal for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr R.V. Desai, Senior Advocate with H.V.Mehta for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM:DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND V.C. DAGA,JJ.

¶11

DATED:23rd APRIL, 2007.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Heard.

¶14

Perused petition.

¶15

3.	The pet	itioner ha	s filed this petition
under	Article	226	of the Constitution of	India
against	the	order	dated 20th April,	2006
passed	by	the	Settlement Commission,	Customs
and	Central	Excis	e, Mumbai (respondent	No.3)
to	the	extent	the petitioner is directed	to
pay	further	duty	of Rs. 84,76	,680/-with
interest	thereon	at	the rate of 10% per	annum

¶16

and a penalty in the sum of Rs. 10,60,000.00.

¶17

( 2 )

¶18

THE FACTUAL MATRIX

¶19

------------ 4.	------ The factual matrix reveals	that	the
petitioner	is a company	u	nder	Compa	nies	Act,
1956	and is a successor	of	one	M/s.		Pradeep
Drug	Company Ltd.	(P.D	.C.L.).		The	reference
to	the petitioner herei	n	willm	ean	and	include
reference	to the P.D.C.L.		or	the		petitioner
or	both. The P.D.C.L.	-	company	,	which	has

¶20

since merged with the petitioner company, was

¶21

served with show cause notices under the

¶22

provi	sions		of	Secti	ons 28(1	),	114-A and	28-AB
of	the	Cust	oms	Act,	1962	("the	Act" for	short)
for		violati	on	of	Sections	58,59,	68,71 and	72
of	the	Act	and	calle	d upon	to	show cause	as to
why	a	duty	in	the	sum of	Rs.	84,76,688/-	with

¶23

interest thereon together with penalty of Rs.

¶24

10,60,000/- should not be demanded from it.

¶25

5.	The	show cause notices were received b	y
the	petitio	ner-company. The	show		cause
notices	are	based on the	allegat	ions	that
while	che	cking the "Input	output		Ratio",the
Revenue		Authorities discovered	that	there	was
a	systemat	ic; meticulous and	wilful		evasion
of	duty	by the petitioner-co	mpany.		According

¶26

( 3 )

¶27

to	the Revenue,	the petitioner company	had
inflated	the quantity	of raw material	required
for	production of	the finished products	such
as	Erythromycin;	Raxythromycin	and
Erythromy	cin Azithrom	ycin. That	after
utilising	the actual	quantity of raw	materials
and	final products,	the remaining quantity	was
utilized	in the	account of the	petitioner
company	under the	pretext of job work d	one by
the	petitioner-company.	It is further	alleged
that	having taken	advantage of the so	called
Job	Work Syste	m, the petitioner had	started
clearing	the in-b	ound materials,	without
payment	of customs	duty for the manufactu	re of
the	finished prod	ucts. It is also	alleged
that	the petitione	r company had fr	audulently
fabricated	and cr	eated bogus records	with
regard	to the mothe	r liquor i.e. "the	mixture
of sp	ent solvents".	According to the	Revenue,
the	petitioner co	mpany has admitted	the
evasion is	of duty and in these cir	the part played by it. cumstances that the show	It cause

¶28

notices came to be issued to the

¶29

petitioner-company along with others.

¶30

( 4 )

¶31

After receipt of the aforesaid show

¶32

cause	notices,	the	petitioner;	instead	of
replying	the	show	cause	notices;	directly
approached	the	Set	tlement	Commission	at

¶33

Chennai; on 25.11.2003 by filing an application under Section 127B of the Act.

¶34

On being noticed, respondent no.2, the

¶35

Commissioner		of		Customs	and Central	Excise,
Chennai	III,		filed	counte	r-affidavit dated	3rd

¶36

January, 2004 opposing application for settlement.

¶37

The above application, at the request of

¶38

the	petitio	ner,	came	to	be tr	ansferred	to the
Respondent			no.3,the		Settlem	ent	Commission
Customs		and	Central	Ex	cise,	Additional	Bench,
Mumbai,	by		an order	dated	23rd	March,	2004

¶39

passed by the Chairman of the Settlement

¶40

Commission, Principle Bench,New Delhi.

¶41

In view of the aforesaid order of

¶42

transfer,	petition	er	appears	to	have	filed
fresh	application	dated	28th	June,	2004	before
the	respondent	No.3.	The	petitioner,	in	the

¶43

( 5 )

¶44

application, expressed it’s willingness to settle the dispute on payment of Rs.67,40,290.00 as the additional amount of

¶45

duty disclosed.

¶46

10.	The respo	ndent	No.2 file	d submissi	ons
dated	3rd	and	31st	August,	200	4	before	the
respondent	No.3.		Th	e	appl	ication	of	the
petitioner	came		up	for	adm	ission	on	31st
August,	2004.		The	petition	er,	at	the	hearing,
admitted	duty	li	ability	in	the	sum	of	Rs.
67,40,290.00		as		against		de	mand	of

¶47

Rs.1,71,91,550/- made in the show cause

¶48

notices.

¶49

11.	The Settleme	nt Commissi	on by it’s
interim	order	dated	31.8.2004,	issued	on
30.9.2004,	allow	ed the	petitioner	to	proceed
under	Section	127C(1)	of the	Act	with
direction	to	pay	admitted duty	liability	of
Rs.	67,40,290/-	within	30 days	of the	receipt
of order	dated	31st	August,	2004.	The

¶50

petitioner accordingly paid the said sum of

¶51

Rs.67,40,200.00.

¶52

( 6 )

¶53

The respondent No.2,thereafter, filed a

¶54

Writ	Petition	No.2464 of	2005	before	the
Madras	High	Court challenging	the	legality	and
validity	of	the said interim	ord	er dated	31st
August,	2004,	which came to	be	dismissed	by
the	learned	Single Judge	holding	that	the
Madras	High	Court had		no	territorial
jurisdiction	to	entertain and	try	the	writ

¶55

petition since the order was passed by the

¶56

Settlement Commission, Mumbai.

¶57

In the appeal filed by the Revenue dismissal order came to be set aside. The said writ petition was restored and remanded

¶58

to the learned Single Judge for hearing on

¶59

merits; observing as under:-

¶60

"In the present	case, the appellant has
alleged that the	entire occurrence of
the offence was	committed within the
jurisdiction of	the Settlement
Commission, Additional	Bench, Chennai
and out of 13	applicants, 8 applicants
are working in	the fifth respondent’s
factory at Satham	ai Village, within the
jurisdiction of	the Settlement
Commission, Chennai	and the show cause
notice, which was	the basis for filing
the application, was	also issued at
Chennai. The	private bonded
warehouse,from where	the respondents are
alleged to have	acquired the raw
materials without	payment of duty, is
also located at	Maduranthagam. The

¶61

( 7 )

¶62

surprise		investigation, the recove	ry of
incrimina	ting	documents and records	have
also	taken	place within the	jurisdiction
of	this	Court. All the other	events
spelt	out	in Annexure-A which form	the
grounds		to the allegations conta	ined in
the	show	cause notice, would show	that
they	to	ok place within the	jurisdiction
of		this	Court."

¶63

(Emphasis supplied)

¶64

The aforesaid judgment has been accepted

¶65

by the petitioner. The writ petition remanded by the learned Division Bench of Madras High

¶66

Court is still pending for admission before

¶67

the learned Single Judge.

¶68

During the pendency of the aforesaid

¶69

petition, the respondent no.3-Settlement Commission, Mumbai passed final order dated 28th April, 2006.

¶70

The Commission settled the case of the

¶71

petitioner		for		Rs.1,52,16,978.00.		and
directed		the peti	tioner	to pay the		remaining
amount	of	Rs.		84,76,680/-	with	interest
thereon	at	the	rate	of 10% per	annum	from
28.7.2001		together	wit	h penalty	of	Rs.
10,60,000/-		within	30	days from the	date	of

¶72

( 8 )

¶73

receipt of the order. The respondent No.3 has

¶74

also granted immunity to the petitioner from prosecution alongwith others.

¶75

17.	The petit	ioner, in	this petit	ion, has
prayed	for	settin	g	aside	order	dated	28th
April,	2006	to	the		extent	it	requires
petitioner	to	pay	duty	in	excess	of	quantity
of	Rs. 5,1	03.90	kgs	of ET	and	interest	@ 10%
per	annum	toge	ther		with	penalty	of

¶76

Rs.10,60,000/- on the various grounds raised

¶77

in the petition.

¶78

18.	When this petition, for the first	time
came	up for admission	before	this	Court,	the
counsel	for the petitioner	was	put	on	notice
that	this Court may	no	t	consider	it
appropriate	to	exe	rcise		territorial
jurisdiction	in the	matter.		The	learned
counsel,	thus, was called	upon	to	address	this
Court	on the question,	whether	it	would	be
appropriate	on the part	of	this	Court	to
exercise	writ jurisdiction	in	the	matter,	and
as to	why the pet	itioner	sho	uld not	be
relegated	to the jurisd	iction	of	the	Madras

¶79

( 9 )

¶80

High Court. That is how, the petition was

¶81

heard on preliminary issue indicated herein.

¶82

SUBMISSIONS

¶83

19.	The learned	counsel	for the petitioner
Mr	Shah	urged	that since the respondent	no.3
(Settlement	Co	mmissio	ner), who is located	at
Mumbai,	within	the	jurisdiction of this	Court;
this	Court	has	a territorial jurisdiction	to
entertain	and	try	this petition. He	placed
reliance	on	the	(unreported) judgment	of
Division	Bench	of	this Court, in the case	of
The	Commissioner		of Customs,Trichy	No.1,
Trichirappall	i	Vs.	Standard Industries	Ltd.
Bombay	(Customs	A	pplication No. 3 of	2000

¶84

decided on 15th February, 2007, to which one

¶85

of us (Daga,J) is a party.

¶86

Per contra, Mr Desai, learned Senior

¶87

Counsel,		appearing	for	the	Revenue	urged	that
the	writ	petition	bea	ring	No.2464/2005		filed
against	the	Interim	Or	der	passed	by	the
Respondent		No.	3(Settlem	ent	Commissione	r),	who
is	located	at	Mumbai	,was	filed	by	the
respondent		no.2 in	the	High	Court at		Madras,

¶88

( 10 )

¶89

which	was originally dismissed by the learned
Single	Judge holding it to be not maintainable
before	it. However, the Division Bench of the
said C	ourt has set aside the said order of the
learned	Single Judge in appeal filed by the
Commissi	oner of Central Excise, Pondicherry
against	Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind.
Ltd.,(prese	nt petitioner), reported in 2006
(202)	E.L.T.233( Mad.); holding that the
Madras	High Court has jurisdiction to
entertain	and try writ petition filed against
the	order of the respondent no.3. The said
judgment	has been accepted by the petitioner.
As	such, Mr Desai submits that the petitioner

¶90

should be directed to approach the Madras High

¶91

Court.

¶92

21.	Mr Desai furthe	r subm	its that
considering	the entire	occurrence	of the
offence	committed, the	intrinsic	cause of
action	is within the	jurisdiction	of the
Madras	High Court. He	has also	emphasized
that	the show cause notice	was issued	by the
respondent	no.2, who is	located at	Chennai.
The	first application	before the	Settlement

¶93

( 11 )

¶94

Commissio	ner was filed	at		Chenn	ai, though	, it
was	transferred to	the	resp	ondent	no.3	at
Mumbai	by the subse	quent	or	der.	He	further
submits	that the	petition	er	has	it’s	office
within	the jurisdiction	of	the		Madras	High
Court	wherein entire	reco	rd	perta	ining to	the
case	is available. As	su	ch,	it	would be	more

¶95

convenient for both the parties to fight the

¶96

present litigation before the Madras High Court.

¶97

Mr Desai placed reliance on the judgment

¶98

of the	Delhi High	Court	in the	case	of	West
Coast	Ingots (P)	Ltd.	versus	Com	missioner	of
C.Ex.,New	Delhi,	2007	(209)		E.L.T.343	(Del.),
contending	the facts	in	volved in		the	said

¶99

reported judgment are almost identical with

¶100

the case on hand.

¶101

Mr Desai also placed reliance on the

¶102

paras 27 and 30 of the judgment of the Apex

¶103

Court in the case of Kusum Ingots (cited

¶104

supra) in support of his submission.

¶105

( 12 )

¶106

CONSIDERATION

¶107

24. Having heard the rival part	ies on the
issue, it is not in	dispute that the	factory
of the petitioner is	located within	the
jurisdiction of the Madr	as High Court.	It is
also not in dispute	that the show	cause
notices were issued	by the respondent	no.2,
who is located at Chen	nai. It is also	not in
dispute that, initially,	the application	for
settlement was filed	before the	Settlement
Commission at Chenna	i, and, subsequently,	got
it transferred to the	respondent No.3	at
Mumbai. Acts constit	uting the foundation	of
the show cause notices	were committed by	the
petitioner within the	jurisdiction of	the
Madras High Court.	Thus, the intrinsic	and

¶108

substantial cause of action is within the

¶109

jurisdiction of the Madras High Court.

¶110

Mr Desai rightly relied upon the

¶111

judgment	of the	Delhi	High	Court in	the case
of West	Coast	Ingots		(P) Ltd.	(supra);
wherein	the	petitioners	had	filed	settlement
applications		before	the	Settlement	Commission

¶112

( 13 )

¶113

at Mumbai, for settlement of their re	spective
cases in respect of show cause notices	dated
1-10-2004 and 30-7-2004 issued to them by	the
Commissioner of Central Excise Goa in	respect
of the supplies made by the petitioners	of
M.S. Ingots, to Goa Ispat Ltd. located	in
the State of Goa, by evading the payment	of
excise duty. The settlement applications,	as
stated were, initially, filed before	the
Additional Bench of the Settlement Com	mission
at Mumbai; and admitted duty liability	was
deposited with it. Later on the proc	eedings
were transferred to the Principal Bench of	the
Settlement Commission at Delhi.	The
settlement applications were disposed of	by
the final orders passed by the Principal	Bench
of the Settlement Commission located at	Delhi.
The said orders were sought to be impugned	by
filing writ petitions before the High Court	of
Delhi; wherein the question came up	for
consideration, whether it would be app	ropriate

¶114

for the said High Court to exercise

¶115

territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

¶116

( 14 )

¶117

It was sought to be argued on behalf of

¶118

the	petitioners,	to persuade the Delhi	High
Court	to exer	cise it’s writ jurisdiction,	that
the	principal	Bench of the	Settlement
Commission,	who	had passed orders, was	located
at	Delhi	i.e. within the	territorial
jurisdiction	of	the said High Court, as	such
it had	a juri	sdiction to entertain and t	ry the
writ	petition;	notwithstanding	the
petitioners	themse	lves were located in	the
State	of Goa	and show cause notices	were

¶119

issued by the Commission or of Customs having

¶120

its office at Goa.

¶121

Dealing with the aforesaid contention,

¶122

the High	Court	at	Delhi	relying on	the para	27
of judg	ment	of	Kusum	Ingots &	Alloys	Ltd
versus	Union	of	India	2004 (168)	ELT 3	(SC)
expressed	it’s		inability	to agree	with	the
submissions		made	by	the	petitioners	and
declined	to	entertain	writ	petitions.	All	the
petitions		were	dismisse	d without	prejudice	to
the	rights	of	the	petitioners to	approach	the

¶123

appropriate Court with the following

¶124

observations:-

¶125

( 15 )

¶126

"We are also unable to agree with the submission that the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in Suraj Woolen Mills (supra) and Bombay Snuff Pvt.Ltd. (supra) would not apply only because they concern the filing of statutory appeals. The underlying principle recognized in both judgments is that the High Court should not exercise jurisdiction only because the Tribunal whose order is in appeal before it is located within its territorial jurisdiction. In Suraj Woolen Mills (supra), a reference was made to the two earlier decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT, (1978) 113 ITR 817 and Birla Cotton and Spinning Mills Ltd. V CIT, Rajasthan, (1980) 123 ITR 354 where appeals had been filed against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi although the assessees resided and carried on business outside Delhi. In both those cases this Court declined to exercise jurisdiction. In Bombay Snuff Pvt. Ltd. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court relied upon another judgment of the Division Bench in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Technological Institute of Textile, 1998 (47) DRJ 667 (DB) to the same effect. We see no reason why this principle should not be applied to decline to entertain a writ petition under Article 226."

¶127

	"Turning	to Vijay Fertilizers		Pvt.Ltd.
(supra)	the	following observ	ations	made
after	taking	into account the		judgment
in Kusu	m Ingots, may be u	sefully noticed.
		"On a reading of	Article	226(1)
	of abundantly	the Constitution it clear that	will	be without
	the	next following	provisio	n, a
	High	Court may not	have	been
	empowered	to issue a	writ	or
	order not	against a party located within	which the	is ordinary

¶128

( 16 )

¶129

territorial	limits of that High
Court.	The power to issue writs
against	any person or Authority
or	Government even beyond the
territorial	jurisdiction of any
High	Court is no longer
debatable.	The rider or
pre-requisi	te to the exercise of
such	power is that the cause of
action	must arise within the
territories	of that particular
High	Court. It does not
logically	follow, however, that
if	the cause of action, wholly
or	in part,arises within the
territories	over which that High
Court	holds sway, it must
exercise	that power rather than
directing	the petitioner to seek
his	remedy in any other High
Court	which is better suited to
exercise	jurisdiction for the
reason	that the predominant,
substantial	or significant part
of	the cause of action arises
in that	Court. In other words,
any	High Court is justified in
exercising	powers under Article
226	either if the person,
Authority	or Government is
located	within its territories
or i	f the substantial and a
significant	part of the cause of
action	has arisen within its
territories.	The rationale of
Section	20 of the Code of Civil
Procedure	would,therefore, also
apply	to Article 226(2). A part
of t	he cause of action would
indubitabl	y arise at the place
where	a person receives an
adverse	order, under the
ordinary	principles of law...
According	ly, since i am of the
opinion	that the substantial or
significant	part of the cause of
action	has arisen in Uttar
Pradesh,	merely because the
final	say is that of the Central
Governme	nt, Article 226(2) does

¶130

( 17 )

¶131

not require this Court to
exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution. (emphasis supplied)." "Mr.Kaul referred to the judgment of
this Court in Agri Trade India Services
Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2006
(204) E.L.T.161 (Del.) where a challenge
to a notification issued by the Director
General of Foreign Trade (’DGFT’) by way
of a writ petition by a company located
in Mumbai was entertained. However, as
has been pointed out in the said
judgment itself, a substantial portion
of cause of action arose in Delhi since
the notification under challenge was
issued by the DGFT in Delhi and all
representations were made to and
considered by the authorities in Delhi.
Therefore, the judgment in Agri Trade
India Services Pvt.Ltd.(supra), cannot
come to the assistance of the petitioners herein."

¶132

We fully concur with the above view.

¶133

The Division Bench of this Court also

¶134

had	an	occasion	to	consider, more	or	less,
similar		issue in	the	case of		Standard

¶135

Industries Ltd. (supra); wherein this Court

¶136

has observed as under:-

¶137

	"Extendin	g th	e	aforesaid	principle	of
law	enunci	ated	b	y the Apex	Court	that
even	if	the		authority is	dealing	with
the	case	arising		in the State	could	be
deemed		principal		authority	located	in
the	State,	thoug	h,	factually,	its	office
may	be	outside		the State,	such	authority
could	be	amenable		to the	jurisdiction	of
the	High	Court		from where	the	original

¶138

( 18 )

¶139

proceedings		were i	nitiated,	it	is,
thus,clear		that the	High	Court,	whether
or	not	original	authority	located,	will
have matter."	jurisdict	ion to	deal	with	the

¶140

30.	In the view of the above, e	ven if	the
respondent	no.3 is		physically		located	at
Mumbai,	however, since	it	is	dealing	with	the
case	arising in the	State	of	Tamil	Nadu,	it
could	be deemed to	be	located	in	that	State

¶141

amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the

¶142

Madras High Court.

¶143

The above case was principally decided

¶144

on	the touchstone of	doctrin	e of	merger;
wherein	the order of	the	first	Appellate
Authority	had merged in	the	order of	the
Tribunal.	The logic	underlying	the	doctrine
of	merger is that there	cannot	be more	than
one	decree or operative	orders	governing	the
same	subject-matter at a	given	point of	time.
When	a decree or order	passed	by the	inferior
Court,	Tribunal or Auth	ority	was subjected	to
a	remedy available under	law	before	superior
forum;	then the order	of	superior	forum
disposing	of lis before	it	either way	-
whether	decree or order	under	appeal set	aside

¶145

( 19 )

¶146

or	modified or	simply confirmed, it is	the
decree	or order	of the superior	court,
Tribunal	or Autho	rity which is the	final,
binding	and ope	rative decree or	order;
wherein	merges the	decree or order passed	by
the	Court, Tribunal	or Authority below.	Thus,
invoking	the doctri	ne of merger, the view	was
taken	that the	substantial cause of	action
giving	rise to	the proceedings was based	on
the	order of the	Tribunal located at	Mumbai.
The	ultimate adve	rse order affecting	the
revenue	was that	of the Tribunal located	at
Mumbai.	In this	view of the matter,	the
observati	ons were	made observing that if	two
courts	have jurisdic	tion, then it is for	the
suitor	to choose for	um. The issue involve	d in

¶147

this petition was not involved in the above

¶148

case.

¶149

In the case on hand, the doctrine of

¶150

merger	is	not	applicable	.	Th	e order	passed	by
the	Auth	ority	below	did	not	merge	into	the
order	of	the	Settlement		Commis	sion.	The	order
of	Sett	lement	Commissi	on	can	neither	be	said
to	be	an	order in	app	eal or	revis	ion.	The

¶151

( 20 )

¶152

Settlement	Commission is altogether	a
different	special forum created under the	Act
for s	ettlement of the disputes. If	the
settlement	is not accepted by the parties	then
the	original proceeding gets revived	and
reopened.	In this view of the matter,	the
reliance	placed by the learned counsel for	the
petitioner the case of mis-placed.	on the judgment of this Court Standard Industries Ltd.(supra) is	in
33.	We must point out that the issue in this
petition	is not whether this Court	lacks
jurisdiction	to entertain this writ	petition.
This	Court certainly has a jurisdiction.	The
real	question is whether this Court	should
entertain	this petition only because a	small
part	of cause of action arises within	the

¶153

jurisdiction of this Court. In other words,

¶154

the issue is :

¶155

"Whe	ther	this	Court	should decline	to
entertain		this	petition	considering	the
doctrine	of	"f	orum con	veniens" when	the
substantial	and		intrinsic	cause	of
action	has		arisen	within	the
jurisdiction		of	the	Madras	High
Court?"

¶156

( 21 )

¶157

We are unable to persuade ourselves to

¶158

exercise	terri	torial	jurisdiction		in	the
matter.	It	may	at once	be notic	ed that	the
judgment	in	Kusum	Ingots	and	Alloys	Ltd.
(supra)	does	not	lay down	that a	High	Court
should	in	variably	exercise	jurisdictio	n	when
an	order,	challenged	before	it, is	passed	by
an	authority	or	Tribunal	located	within	its
territorial		jurisdiction	.	The		following

¶159

observations in the said judgment would bear

¶160

this out:

¶161

"27. When an order, however, is passed by a Court or Tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of original authority merges with that of the appellate authority."

¶162

"30. We must, however, remind

¶163

ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate

¶164

( 22 )

¶165

cases,the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens."

¶166

In other words, the above judgment in

¶167

Kusum I	ngots	and Alloys Lt	d.,	leaves	it to	the
High	Court	to decide, on	the	facts	of	each
case,	whether	it is	requi	red	to	exercise
jurisdiction;		if a part	of	the	cause	of
action arises	within	its territorial
jurisdiction.

¶168

On the above canvas of law, in exercise

¶169

of	our di	scretion,	for	all	the above	reasons,
we	decline	to	e	ntertain	this	petition.
However,	the	dismissal	of	the	Writ Petit	ion is
without	prejudice	to	the		rights of	the
petitioner	to	ap	proach	appro	priate forum	to
seek	appropr	iate re	lief	sought	in the	present
petition.		Petition	is,		accordingly,	dismissed

¶170

leaving all rival contentions open on merits

¶171

with no order as to costs.

¶172

(V.C. DAGA,J)

¶173

(DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)

¶174

( 23 )

Sun Pharmaaceutical Industries Ltd. v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sun Pharmaaceutical Industries Ltd. v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Pune II

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane Vs Ajit Kumar D. Tannu

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane Vs Vijay Kumar Beriwal

Commissioner of Income Tax, CITY-6, Mumbai Vs M/S. Basf India Ltd.

Vithal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner of Income Tax City-Vii, Mumbai Vs M/S. Thakral Computers Pvt. Ltd.