Legal Reference Library

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rahul Jain Vs Smt. Namrata Jain has held that the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. Such jurisdiction can be “exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice”, the court observed. The court upheld the order of trial court that dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code to summon a particular witness in his divorce case.  The court found on the date the issues were framed in the divorce case the petitioner did not filed any list of witnesses nor made any request to summon a particular witness. Justice Vandana Kasrekar held the trial court has not passed the order “in violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting interference of this Court under Ar...

In Satish Dharmu Rathod v. The State of Maharashtra, the complainant in her FIR lodged at the Cantonment Police Station on 9.10.2015 had alleged that while cohabitation at matrimonial home, she was subjected to maltreatment and harassment by the applicant on account of demand of money as well as domestic cause. Pursuant to the FIR, setting the criminal law in motion and the IO proceeded to record the statement of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case. Meanwhile, the applicants approached the High Court praying to quash and set aside the impugned FIR, filed by the complainant contending that the Cantonment Police Station, Aurangabad had no territorial jurisdiction to investigate into the crime as no part of crime was shown committed within its territorial limits  as the alleged offences were shown to be committed at Kandhar and Mumbai. The Court found no force in the argument stating that the FIR deserved to be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdic...

In Satish Dharmu Rathod vs The State of Maharashtra the Bombay High Court has held that a criminal investigation cannot be quashed on the ground that the investigating officer has no territorial jurisdiction. It was alleged in the petition that the police of cantonment police station, Aurangabad, had no territorial jurisdiction to investigate into the crime as no part of crime is shown committed within the territorial limits of Cantonment Police Station, Aurangabad. The alleged offence of cruelty and criminal intimidation etc. are shown to have been committed at Kandhar and Mumbai. Therefore, the FIR registered at Cantonment Police Station, Aurangabad, deserves to be quashed and set aside for lack of jurisdiction to investigate into the crime, the petition said. The high court held that sub-section (2) of Section 156 of CrPC stated that no proceeding of police officer in any stage shall, be called in question on the ground that the case was one which the officer was no...

In M/S Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors, it was decided that : 31. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the convenience of all the parties before it. The convenience in its ambit and sweep would include the existence of more appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for just adjudication of the controversy and such other ancillary aspects. The balance of convenience is also to be taken note of. Be it noted, the Apex Court has clearly stated in the cases of Kusum Ingots (supra), Mosaraf Hossain Khan (supra) and Ambica Industries (supra) about the applicability of the doctrine of forum conveniens while opining that arising of a part of cause of action would entitle the High Court to entertain the writ petition as maintainable. 32. The principle of forum conveniens in its ambit and sweep encapsulates the concept ...

The Delhi High Court in PKS Shrivastava vs. Union Of India And Anr, has dealt with the maintainability of a writ petition on the ground as to whether it had the territorial jurisdiction to decide it or not, as the petition was filed against an order of termination of service passed by the Ministry in New Delhi against Shrivastava, who worked as a Director of Goa Shipyard Ltd. Shrivastava argued that Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction whereas the ministry argued that this court did not have the territorial jurisdiction. Shrivastava was employed by Goa Shipyard Ltd (GSL) as a Director (CPP&BD) in Goa. The termination orders were issued on two dates, 28.10.2015 (issued to PK Shrivastava by MD of GSL) and 27.10.2015 (issued by the Ministry to the Chairperson of GSL). The issue was that whether merely because the Government of India had issued its letter dated 27.10.2015 in Delhi, then would this ipso facto give territorial jurisdiction to Delhi Court, although the letter...

What are the changes brought in by virtue of Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015  relating to the Territorial Jurisdiction to file Complaints of Dishonour of Cheques? Gujarat High Court has explained the principles relating to it in a recent Judgment in Brijendra Enterprise v. State of Gujarat and another with illustrations. The Judgment was delivered by Justice J.B.Pardiwala in an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing a Criminal Complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act on the ground of lack of territorial Jurisdiction for the Magistrate to try the Case. It is held that “The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill [Act], 2015, inter alia, provides for the following, namely : (i) cases relating to dishonor of cheques under section 138 of the said Act to be inquired and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank, where the payee or the holder in due course maintains the account, is situated; (ii) cases under section 138 pen...

State of Kerala v. P.B. Sourabhan and Ors. The State Police Chief or Director General of Police is empowered to appoint a superior officer to investigate a crime case registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of such officer. The Supreme Court disagreed with the finding of the High Court that such an exercise of powers was in excess of the powers under Section 36 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It noted that such a conclusion could not be reached on a reading of Section 36 of the CrPC as it contained no direct bar to the effect; rather "It is the satisfaction of the State Police Chief, in the light of the facts of a given case, that would be determinative of the appointment to be made in which situation the limits of jurisdiction will not act as fetter or come in the way of exercise of such jurisdiction by the superior officer so appointed."

There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party, the Court said. The Supreme Court in Malati Sardar vs. National Insurance Company Limited has restated its earlier position in Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 2 SCC 244 regarding territorial jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Apex Court Bench of Justices Anil R. Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel held that there is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. Context A young teacher from Hoogly died in an accident in 2008. The Tribunal in Kolkata, on his application awarded a compensation of Rs.16, 12,200/-. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company preferred was allowed on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction since the dece...

                                                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION                 WRIT PETITION NO.73 OF 2014 GSL (India) Ltd.                                       ... Petitioner          v/s     Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. ... Respondents 46. We have carefully perused the reasoning of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Amish Jain1 and with the great respect and utmost humility, we are unable to agree with the view expressed therein. Firstly, we are unable to agree with the finding of t...

1)CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10643-10644 OF 2010, Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Dalia & Anr. 2)Just Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. vs Advance Magazine Publishers Inc (CA Nos 10643-10644/2010 with CA No 4912/2015 @ SLP (C) No 8253/2013) The Supreme Court, on 1 July 2015 has dismissed the appeals filed by the Indian Performing Rights Society Limited (IPRS) and Advance Magazine Publishers Inc (Advance Magazine) against orders of the High Court of Delhi, and held that if a plaintiff is residing or carrying on business at a place where the cause of action has also arisen, either wholly or in part, it has to file suit at that place. Both cases concerned the place of institution of the suit - the IPRS case is related to Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 (Copyright Act), while the Advance Magazine case is related to Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 (TM Act),

Case Referred: 1. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2014 (9) Supreme Court Cases 129. Facility to en cash cheque at any bank branch - Held: Mere presentation of cheque in a CBS branch does not give rise a cause of action and confirm territorial jurisdiction to Court of that area - . On bare reading of provisions contained in Section 138 read with Section 142 of NI Act and the view taken by the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra), there is no scope of confusion that complaint under Section 138 of NI Act will be maintainable only at the place where the cheque stands dishonoured. In other words, the prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act would only lie at the place where the drawee bank is situated. 2015 STPL(Web) 482 DEL [2015 (1) DCR 169] DELHI HIGH COURT (MR. VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.) GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD. Petitioner VERSUS STATE & ORS. Respondent ...................... 7. Learned counsel for t...

Delhi High Court Ritu Sharma & Another vs Shri Sandeep Sharma & Ors. on 30 August, 2011 Author: A. K. Pathak IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI  CS (OS) No. 1226/1999 * Decided on: 30th August, 2011 RITU SHARMA & ANOTHER .......Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Atul Sharma and Mr. Sardjanand Jha, Advs. Vs. SHRI SANDEEP SHARMA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra and Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advs. for defendant No. 3. Mr. J.C. Mahindru, Adv. for the Defendant No. 4. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers No may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? A.K. PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. On 27th April, 2009 following preliminary issue was framed:- "(a) Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit in respect of the propert...

Supreme Court of India M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 April, 2004 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: Cji, S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia. 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 th...

Delhi High Court M/S Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 August, 2011 Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 12th May, 2011 Date of decision: 1st August, 2011 1. W.P.(C) No.6570/2010 M/s. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. ... Petitioner Through: Mr.M.P. Devnath with Mr. Manish Panda, Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr.  Tarun Jain, Advs. Mr.Atul Nanda, Amicus Curiae. Versus Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Sonia Sharma and Ms.Sandeep Bajaj, Advs. for UOI. Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Mukesh Anand with Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Mr. Sumit Batra &  Mr.R.C.S. Bhadoria, Mr. Jayendra Advs. for R-2 & R-3. 2. W.P.(C) No.8399/2009 Jan Chetna ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Parikh with Mr.Ritwick  Dutta and Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Advs. Versus Ministry of Environment and Forests & Ors. ... Respondents Through: Mr....