Case: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited Vs. The Union of India &amp; Others

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."28. We fully concur with the above view. 29. The Division Bench of this Court also had an occasion to consider, more or less, similar issue in the case of Standard Industries Ltd. (supra); wherein this Court has observed as under:-"Extending the aforesaid principle of law enunciated by 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, though, factually, its office may be outside the State, such authority could be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court from where the original proceedings were initiated, it is, thus, clear that the High Court, whether or not original authority located, will have jurisdiction to deal with the matter."30. In the view of the above, even 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 amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Madras High Court.31. The above case was principally decided on the touchstone of doctrine 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 Authority 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 or modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior court, Tribunal or Authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order; wherein merges the decree or order passed by the Court, Tribunal or Authority below. Thus, invoking the doctrine 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 adverse order affecting the revenue was that of the Tribunal located at Mumbai. In this view of the matter, the observations were made observing that if two courts have jurisdiction, then it is for the suitor to choose forum. The issue involved in this petition was not involved in the above case.32. In the case on hand, the doctrine of merger is not applicable. The order passed by the Authority below did not merge into the order of the Settlement Commission. The order of Settlement Commission can neither be said to be an order in appeal or revision. The Settlement Commission is altogether a different special forum created under the Act for settlement 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 on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ltd. Standard Industries Ltd.(supra) is mis-placed. 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 jurisdiction of this Court. In other words, the issue is :"Whether this Court should decline to entertain this petition considering the doctrine of "forum conveniens" when the substantial and intrinsic cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court"34. We are unable to persuade ourselves to exercise territorial jurisdiction in the matter. It may at once be noticed that the judgment in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. (supra) does not lay down that a High Court should invariably exercise jurisdiction when an order, challenged before it, is passed by an authority or Tribunal located within its territorial jurisdiction. The following observations in the said judgment would bear this out:"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." "30. We must, however, remind 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 cases,the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens."35. In other words, the above judgment in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd., leaves it to the High Court to decide, on the facts of each case, whether it is required to exercise jurisdiction; if a part of the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction.36. On the above canvas of law, in exercise of our discretion, for all the above reasons, we decline to entertain this petition. However, the dismissal of the Writ Petition is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach appropriate forum to seek appropriate relief sought in the present petition.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]28. We fully concur with the above view.In the view of the above, even 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 amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Madras High Court.31. The above case was principally decided on the touchstone of doctrine 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 sameat a given point of time. When a decree or order passed by the inferior Court, Tribunal or Authority was subjected to a remedy available under law before superior forum; then the order of superior forum disposing of lis before it either wayWe are unable to persuade ourselves to exercise territorial jurisdiction in the matter. It may at once be noticed that the judgment in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. (supra) does not lay down that a High Court should invariably exercise jurisdiction when an order, challenged before it, is passed by an authority or Tribunal located within its territorial jurisdiction.In other words, the above judgment in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd., leaves it to the High Court to decide, on the facts of each case, whether it is required to exercise jurisdiction; if a part of the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction.36. On the above canvas of law, in exercise of our discretion, for all the above reasons, we decline to entertain this petition. However, the dismissal of the Writ Petition is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach appropriate forum to seek appropriate relief sought in the present petition.