SCA/7578/2008 6/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7578 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SATISHKUMAR SHARMA DIRECTOR OF M/S RICHMORE - Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 4 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR TAMIM ANSARI for Petitioner(s) : 1, DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5. MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) : 1,4 - 5. MR HARIN P RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 1,4 - 5. MR DIPEN A DESAI for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 29/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT
The
short facts of the case appear to be that the respondent No. 2 and 3
are the officers of the company registered under the Companies Act
and is having registered office at Delhi. The petitioner is located
at Gujarat. The Apparel House was projected and is constructed by
Apparel Export Promotion Council (hereinafter referred to as the
Council ). The petitioner applied for allotment of space in
such Apparel House, which is located at Gurgaon. It appears that the
application of the petitioner was accepted, and the provisional
allotment letter was issued by the Council on 11.6.2007, whereby the
petitioner was called upon to make payment of Rs. 12,29,970/-, and
it was also conveyed to the petitioner that the possession shall be
handed over on leave & license basis, but the agreement will
have to be entered for such purpose. As per the petitioner, the
payment in part was made, and the request was made to handover the
possession. Whereas, it is the case of the respondent Council that
payment was not made as per the terms and condition, and therefore,
the possession was not handed over. The aforesaid resulted into
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent Council, which has
led the petitioner to file the present petition before this Court.
Heard
Mr. Ansari learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pranav Trivedi
with Mr. Desai learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3, and Ms.
Mandavia learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1,4 and 5.
The
aspect, which deserves consideration in the present petition is the
point of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the
petitioner that this Court has the jurisdiction, since the
petitioner is located at Anand of Gujarat State, is doing business
at Gujarat, and is having factory at Gujarat, and he has no capacity
to file petition at High Court of Delhi or the High Court Punjab and
Haryana, and the cause of action has in part accrued within the
territory of Gujarat.
Whereas
on behalf of the respondent Council, it has been contended that the
cause of action has accrued only in territory of Punjab and Haryana
High Court, since the Apparel House is located at Gurgaon, or in any
case since the registered office of the respondent Council is
located at Delhi, the petitioner has to ventilate grievance by
filing appropriate petition, if permissible in law before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana or at High Court of Delhi and this Court
may not have the territorial jurisdiction.
It
appears that it is an admitted position that the Apparel House is a
place where the showroom was to be allotted to the petitioner on
payment of requisite amount. Further, the application of the
petitioner for allotment of the showroom at the Apparel House,
though made from Gujarat is processed at Delhi. The communication
for provisional allotment is made from Delhi to the petitioner, but
the provisional allotment cannot be termed as concluded contract. It
is only after the requisite payment is made by the petitioner and
the leave and license agreement is entered into, and the possession
is handed over, it would be concluded contract. The payment to be
made was at Delhi and leave and license agreement could be at Delhi
or at Gurgaon. In any case the possession of the property was to be
handed over at Gurgaon.
Under
these circumstances, it can be said that the cause of action has
accrued outside the territory of Gujarat State. Further, the
cancellation of the allotment, which is the basis for the present
petition is relating to property located within the territory of
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Gurgaon.
Under
these circumstances, as the cause of action cannot be said as having
accrued within the territory of Gujarat State, this Court will have
no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, which is
raised in the present petition by the petitioner.
The
reference may be made to the decision of Apex Court in case of
Kusum Ingots & Allyes Ltd., v. Union of India and another
reported at 2004(6)SCC 254 and in case of the Union of
India and others v. Adani Exports Ltd., and another reported at
2002(1)SCC567.
Under
these circumstances, as this Court is having no territorial
jurisdiction for the cause, which is subject matter of the present
petition, the petition cannot be entertained.
Hence,
the present petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. IR vacated.
It
is observed that this Court has not gone into the merits of the
cause, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief or not
and on merits of the matter, the contention of both the sides shall
remain open.
Mr.
Ansari learned Counsel for the petitioner states that interim relief
be continued for some time, so as to enable the petitioner to
approach before the higher forum.
Considering
the facts and circumstances, as the petition has been dismissed on
the ground of territorial jurisdiction, such request is declined.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.)
Suresh*