srk 1 wp-140-11.sxw THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.140 OF 2011 M/s. Vipul Logistic & Warehousing Pvt.Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and another. ... Respondents Mr. Hiren Mehta i/by M/s. S.N. Gupta & Co. for the petitioner. Mr. K.R. Belosey, Special Counsel for respondent No.2-State. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & D.G. KARNIK, J. Wednesday, March 30, 2011 P.C. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the Union of India and the Commissioner of Industries in New Delhi to execute a lease deed in respect of Plot No.217-B, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III, New Delhi- 110 020 in favour of the petitioner and also to hand over the vacant possession of the said property to the petitioner. 2. The Custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 issued a public notice inviting offers to purchase the following property on as is where is basis of leasehold rights in perpetuity, belonging to M/s. Killick Nixon Ltd. a judgment srk 2 wp-140-11.sxw debtor of M/s. Dhanraj Mills Pvt.Ltd. an entity notified by the Custodian under section 3(2) of the said Act :- Description, Location of the property Area Leasehold rights in perpetuity of industrial land and structure situated at 217-B, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- III, New Delhi 110020. Area of land 584.81 sq.yds. Building No. of floors. Basement + G + 3 covered area Basement 2562 sq.ft. Ground Floor 2702 sq.ft. Mezzanine Floor 876 sq.ft. Security Rooms & Toilets 144 sq.ft. Total covered area 6284 sq.ft. 3. The petitioner's bid in response to the above notice was found to be highest at Rs.3.55 crores and was accepted by communication dated 29th March, 2006 at Exhibit `J' to the petition. The communication specifically mentioned that the full consideration amount of Rs.3.45 crores was deposited on 16th February, 2006 and interest amount of Rs.1,63,400/- for the delayed payment was also received by the Custodian on 16th February, 2006. The communication further stated that in view of the fact that full consideration amount was paid as purchase price for the property, the petitioner may get the property registered in the petitioner's name with the appropriate authorities. 4. Since despite of acceptance of the bid, no conveyance was being executed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner entered into correspondence with the Custodian. The notices sent by the petitioner were not replied to or complied with. Hence the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.10413 of 2006 before the Delhi High Court. It appears that when the writ petition was argued before a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court, objection about territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court was raised on behalf of the respondents. srk 3 wp-140-11.sxw 5. The writ petition ultimately came to be disposed of in terms of the following order dated 27th October, 2009:- "After some hearing, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to approach the High Court of Mumbai or appropriate forum to agitate their claims and rights. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. This is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents. All pending applications are disposed of." 6. The petitioner filed a review application being CM No.14529/2009 which also came to be disposed of by the following order dated 20th November, 2009:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard and when the writ petition was about to be disposed of, prayer to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach High Court of Bombay or appropriate forum to agitate the claims and rights of the petitioner was made. The prayer was accepted and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn." 7. The petitioner thereafter went in appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Delhi High Court and the appeal came to be disposed of with the following clarification:- "......... Before us, learned counsel for the Appellant contends that neither the Bombay High Court nor any other forum in Mumbai has the territorial jurisdiction to grant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. srk 4 wp-140-11.sxw We cannot make any comment on this one way or the other but we leave it to the Appellant to approach the Bombay High Court or any other appropriate forum in Mumbai to agitate its claims and rights, as mentioned in the orders dated 27th October, 2009 and 20th November, 2009. In the event the Bombay High Court or any other appropriate forum in Mumbai comes to the conclusion that it does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the Appellant, it will be at liberty to approach the learned Single Judge. With these observations the appeal is disposed of." 8. The petitioner thereafter filed the present petition for directions to the Custodian to execute a lease deed in respect of the property in question. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the property in question is situate in Delhi and the respondents are also having their office in Delhi, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondents has specifically relied on the averments and submissions made in the reply affidavit dated 1st March, 2011 raising the above preliminary contention. The affidavit also purports to deal with the petitioner's case on merits,without prejudice to the preliminary objection against the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already paid substantial amount of Rs.3.55 crores as far back as in February, 2006 and that when the petitioner filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court in the year 2006, preliminary objection was raised about the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court and now when the petitioner has moved this Court, respondents are raising again the preliminary objection of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is, therefore, unfair on the part of the srk 5 wp-140-11.sxw respondents to raise the preliminary objection about the territorial jurisdiction of every Court where the petitioner has filed the writ petition. It is further submitted that even if the writ petition is admitted, at the final hearing of the writ petition, the petitioner may again be faced with the same objection, leaving the petitioner in the lurch after having already deposited the substantial amount of Rs.3.55 crores with the Custodian as far back as in February, 2006. 11. In view of the above submissions, we called upon the learned counsel for the respondents to indicate the stand whether according to the respondents, the Court in Delhi would have jurisdiction to look into the petitioner's grievances, when the property in question is situate in Delhi and all the respondents are having their offices in Delhi. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has thereupon fairly submitted that Courts in Delhi do have jurisdiction to look into the petitioner's grievances as the property in question is in Delhi and all the respondents are also having their offices in Delhi. 13. In view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to move the appropriate Court in Delhi for the reliefs prayed for in this petition. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the above observation. CHIEF JUSTICE D.G. KARNIK, J.