Dismissed

Dina Nath Public School v. Assistant P F Commissioner Epfo & Ors.

Delhi HC21 Nov 2016LPA/645/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition as not maintainable due to forum non conveniens, dismissing the appeal by upholding the Single Judge's discretion.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dina Nath Public School Vs Assistant P F… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~34.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 645/2016 & C.M.No.42920/2016 (stay)

¶4

DINA NATH PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Mohak Bhadana, Adv.

¶5

Versus

¶6

ASSISTANT P F COMMISSIONER EPFO & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.R.C.Chawala, Adv. with Mr.D.Rajeshwar Rao, Adv. for R-1.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO

¶8

O R D E R % 21.11.2016 C.M.No.42921/2016 (exemptions)

¶9

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

LPA No.645/2016

¶11

Heard both parties.

¶12

By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge declined to entertain W.P.(C) No.5497/2016 and dismissed the same as not maintainable on account of forum non-conveniens . Assailing the said order, the writ petitioner preferred this appeal.

¶13

As held by a Larger Bench of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Limited vs. Union of India and Others (W.P.(C) No.6570/2010 dated 01.08.2011), this Court may refuse to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not only on the ground that the jurisdiction is invoked in a mala fide manner but also on the ground of forum non-conveniens .

¶14

In the present case, it is no doubt true that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution since the impugned order was passed by the EPF Appellate Authority, which is located in Delhi. However, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner/appellant herein is located in another State and the entire proceedings with regard to the assessment under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were initiated in that State. Hence, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to entertain the writ petition invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens . The said discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. Hence, interference by us is not warranted.

¶15