Case: M/S. Kusum Ingots &amp; Alloys Ltd Vs. Union Of India

2. The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Its registered office is at Mumbai. It obtained a loan from the Bhopal Branch of State Bank of India. The respondent No.2 issued a notice for repayment of the said loan from Bhopal purported to be in terms of the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.3. Questioning the vires of the said Act, the said writ petition was filed before Delhi High Court by the appellant herein which was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Reasoning: 9. Although in view of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions thereof would not apply to a writ proceedings, the phraseology used in Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Clause (2) of Article 226, being in pari materia, the decisions of this Court rendered on interpretation of Section 20(c) of CPC shall apply to the writ proceedings also. Before proceeding to discuss the matter further it may be pointed out that the entire bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved before the petitioner can obtain a decree is the material facts. The expression material facts is also known as integral facts.10. Keeping in view the expressions used in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter.The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to have rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the court.19. Passing of a legislation by itself in our opinion do not confer any such right to file a writ petition unless a cause of action arises therefor.20. A distinction between a legislation and executive action should be borne in mind while determining the said question.The court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction. An order passed on writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act whether interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act.The view taken by this Court in U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow (supra) that situs of issue of an order or notification by the Government would come within the meaning of expression cases arising in clause 14 of the (Amalgamation) Order is not a correct view of law for the reason hereafter stated and to that extent the said decision is overruled. In fact, a legislation, it is trite, is not confined to a statute enacted by the Parliament or Legislature of a State, which would include delegated legislation and subordinate legislation or an executive order made by the Union of India, State or any other statutory authority. In a case where the field is not covered by any statutory rule, executive instruction issued in this behalf shall also come with within the purview thereof, situs of office of the Parliament, Legislature of a State or authorities empowered to make subordinate legislation would not by itself constitute any cause of action or cases arising. In other words framing of a statute, statutory rule or issue of an executive order or instruction would not confer jurisdiction upon a court only because of the situs of the office of the maker thereof.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 at both the places. In other words as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, 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 the original authority merges with that of the appellate authority.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. (See Bhagar Singh Bagga vs. Dewan Jagbir Sawhany, AIR 1941 Cal; Mandal Jalan vs. Madanlal, (1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. M/s. Jharia Talkies & Cold. Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997) CWN 122; S.S. Jain & Co. & Anr. vs. Union of India and others (1994) CHN 445: M/s. New Horizon Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 126).