Karnataka High Court
Sri. Patha Pettalu Mohan vs Discovery Communications India on 17 October, 2025
-1-
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
WP No. 19135 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO. 24160 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 17726 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 19135 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
IN WP No. 24160/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PATHA PETTALU MOHAN,
S/O RANGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.47/64, 12TH A CROSS,
VYALIKAVAL, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
2. SRI.BALAKRISHNA,
S/O BYLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.611, 8TH MAIN,
8TH CROSS, K N EXTENSION,
YESHAWANTHAPUR,
BANGALORE-560 022.
-2-
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
WP No. 19135 of 2022
3. SRI.D.NAGARAJ,
S/O DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.8/2, 11TH CROSS,
MALLATHALLI, 9TH BLOCK,
M.V.LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 056.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.DHANANJAY V.JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI.PRAKASH.K.A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS INDIA
(PRIVATE COMPANY WITH UNLIMITED LIABILITY),
A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT:
125-B, ITS REGISTERED CHAMBER-15,
BHIKAJI CAME PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ABHINAV MUKERJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI.BALARAM.M.L, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
01/09/2022 PASSED BY THE TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT
AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, IN E.A. 20/2019,
ARISING OUT OF BROADCASTING PETITION NO.499/2015, IN
ITS ENTIRETY (ANNEXURE-A) AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDER.
***
IN WP NO. 17726/2022 BETWEEN:
1. SRI.KURUBARAHALLI MUDDAIAH SRIDHAR, S/O K.R.MUDDAIAH, -3- WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.47, KURUBARAHALLI, TAVAREKERE, CHANNAHALLI, BENGALURU-562 130.
2. SRI.SIDDALINGAIAH SHIVARAJ, S/O SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.327, 10TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, BENGLAURU-560 010.
3. SRI.RAJU.H, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.490, 3RD MAIN, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050.
4. SRI.NARASIMMA SWAMY PRASAD, S/O NARASIMMA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.M.C.1503, NO.8, GOLDEN GRAND, N.H.4, TUMKUR ROAD, BENGLAURU-560 022.
5. SRI.SONNEKOPPA JAGADISH JOGAIAH, S/O JOGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.88, MARUTI NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, NANJAPPA BLOCK, ADUGODI BENGALURU-560 030.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.ABHILASH VAIDYANATHAN, ADVOCATE) -4- WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 AND:
DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS INDIA (PRIVATE COMPANY WITH UNLIMITED LIABILITY) A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COMAPNIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT:
125-B, SOMDATT CHAMBER-1, 5, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ABHINAV MUKERJI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.BALARAM.M.L, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED BY THE TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, IN E.A/20/2019 ARISING OUT OF BROADCASTING PETITION No.499/2015 IN ITS ENTIRELY (ANNEXURE-A).
*** IN WP NO. 19135/2022 BETWEEN:
SRI.G.KARIAPPA, S/O LATE MR.P.GOVINDARAJULU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT: NO.N-2, LIC ROW HOUSES, 24TH MAIN,J.P.NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI.DHANANJAY V.JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.PRAKASH.K.A, ADVOCATE) -5- WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 AND:
DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS INDIA (PRIVATE COMPANY WITH UNLIMITED LIABILITY), A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT: 125-B, SOMDATT CHAMBER-1, 5, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ABHINAV MUKERJI, SENIOR COUNSEL SRI.BALARAM.M.L, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED BY THE TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI IN E.A/20/2019 ARISING OUT OF BROADCASTING PETITION No.499/2015 IN ITS ENTIRETY (ANNEXURE-A); AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 01.09.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER, WHICH WAS TAKEN ON RECORD BY THE TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI, IN E.A/20/2019 (ANNEXURE-F); AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO RETURN RS.5,00,000/- (RUPEES FIVE LAKH ONLY) COLLECTED BY IT BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFT DATED 02.09.2022 BEARING No.932904 DRAWN ON CANARA BANK, TILAKNAGAR BRANCH (ANNEXURE-G).-6-
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.09.2025, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, JAYANT BANERJI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) The aforesaid petitions are filed challenging an order of 01.09.2022 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi1, in execution proceedings bearing No. EA/20/2019 arising out of a final order dated 28.03.2019 passed in Broadcasting Petition No.499/2015.
2. The petitioners claim to be the erstwhile Directors and the present Directors of a Company called the Digital Network India Limited2, which is stated to be a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies 1 TDSAT 2 Company -7- WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 Act, 1956 and which is a 'Company' within the meaning of Companies Act, 2013.
3. The respondent-Discovery Communications India is stated to be a private company with unlimited liability, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and a company as defined in the Companies Act, 2013.
4. The respondent originally filed a Broadcasting petition bearing BP No.499/2015, which was filed before the TDSAT for recovery of a sum of Rs.59,82,891/- with interest till the date of realisation. It is stated that none of the Directors including the petitioners were party to the original proceedings that is, BP No.499/2015. The TDSAT passed a final order on 28.03.2019 in the aforesaid BP No.499/2015 directing the Company to pay the respondent a sum of Rs.59,82,891/- together with interest thereon at 9% p.a., from October 2015, till the date of realisation.
-8-
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022
5. Consequent to the aforesaid final order dated 28.03.2019 and a decree dated 12.04.2019, the respondent filed an Execution Application bearing EA No.20/2019 on 23.10.2019 seeking execution of the decree. In the said execution application, the respondent has sought to include all the Company's Directors as party/respondents/judgment debtors to the execution petition without verifying that whether all the petitioners were continuing to be the Directors of the Company. It is stated that the decree was passed against only the Company. On receiving notice, the Company had entered appearance in the execution proceedings. However, by means of the impugned order the TDSAT directed issuance of notice to all the Directors. It is stated that the Directors cannot be personally held liable for the debts of a Company. Such an exercise cannot be carried out unless the corporate veil is lifted and only where circumstances exist to do so, such as when a transaction is fraudulent. It is alleged that, impleading the petitioners is illegal. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners in Writ -9- WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 Petition No.24160/2022 have stated that they were no longer the Directors of the Company and as such issuance of notice against them is illegal.
6. By the impugned order of 01.09.2022, the TDSAT has observed that against the judgment and decree made in BP 499/2015, the Judgment Debtor had not preferred any appeal, which order has, therefore, attained finality. The TDSAT looked into the provisions of Order XXI Rule 41(3) read with Section 55 CPC, and ordered detention of one of the Directors of the Company in civil prison for a period of three months and the Police Officer from the police station nearest to TDSAT was directed to take him into custody. However, since a petitioner who was present before the TDSAT, submitted that some amounts would be paid, the direction for his detention was postponed. The Decree holder was directed to implead the Directors of the respondent as party/respondent Nos.2 to
10. The respondents 2 to 10 in EA/20/2019, being the petitioners herein were directed to remain personally
- 10 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 present before the TDSAT on the next date of hearing i.e., on 09.09.2022 at 11.00 a.m.
7. When the matter was listed on 19.09.2025, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent herein regarding maintainability of this writ petition before this High Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
8. Under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 19973, the TDSAT which is established under Section 14 is enjoined to adjudicate any disputes that are enumerated under Clause (a); under Clause (b) to hear and dispose of appeal against any direction, decision or order of authority under the TRAI Act; and under Clause
(c) of Section 14, exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on the Appellate Tribunal under the Information Technology Qualifications Act, 2000 and the Appellate Tribunal under the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008. The procedure and powers of the TDSAT are specified in Section 16. Under Section 18 3 TRAI Act
- 11 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 of the TRAI Act, an appeal is provided against any order, not being an interlocutory order of the TDSAT, to the Supreme Court on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 19084. The orders of the TDSAT are executable by the TDSAT as a decree of Civil Court under Section 19 and for this purpose the TDSAT shall have all the powers of a Civil Court.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that in all the aforesaid petitions, writs of certiorari have been sought for quashing the impugned order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the TDSAT. Therefore, the present petitions are the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It may be pertinent to quote the provisions of Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, which are as under:-
Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or 4 CPC
- 12 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the scat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3)Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without--
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of
- 13 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.
10. So, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent as to maintainability of this petition before this court will have to be seen in the light of the fact that the petitions aforesaid have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted the following judgments:-
SL. CITATION
NO.
1. R.K. Jain V. Union of India,
(1993) 4 SCC 119
2. L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India and others (1997) 3 SCC 261
3. Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, (2022) 3 SCC 133
4. Madhyam Broadcasting Limited V. Asianet satellite Communications Ltd, 2017 SCC Online Ker 39325
5. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd v. Union of India and others, (2004) 6 SCC 254
6. Ajay Singh and another vs. State of Chattisgarh and another, (2017) 3 SCC 330
7. Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470
- 14 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022
8. S.M.S Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. Neeta Bhalla and another, (2005) 8 SCC 89
9. Dayle De souza vs. Government of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470
10. Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction CO(P) Ltd (1996) 4 SCC 622
11. Singer India Ltd vs. Chander Mohan Chadha and others, (2004) 7 SCC 1
12. M/s Bhandari Engineers and Builders Pvt Ltd vs. M/s. Maharia Raj Joint Venture and others 2016 SCC Online Del 182
13. Ghan Shyam Das Gupta and another Vs. Anant Kumar Sinha and others (1991) 4 SCC 379: 1991 SCC Online SC 255
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has also relied upon the aforesaid judgment in Kusum Ingots, and a judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Chokshi Arvind Jewellers Vs. Union of India and Others5.
13. The judgments in the aforesaid cases of R.K. Jain, L. Chandra Kumar and Alapan Bandhyopadhyay, have been cited in support of the contention that a writ petition can only be maintained as against an order of the Tribunal, only if such Tribunal falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.
52024 SCC Online Bom 793
- 15 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022
14. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand contends that, the judgments in the cases of R.K. Jain, L. Chandra Kumar and Alapan Bandhyopadhyay considered the aspect of jurisdiction in respect of Tribunals constituted under Article 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution of India. He submits that the TDSAT has been constituted under the TRAI Act and not under the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution. It is his contention that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial Jurisdiction of this High Court and the petitioners reside within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court and the notices summoning the petitioners issued by the TDSAT in the execution proceedings have been received by them in Bengaluru. It is therefore stated that, given the provision of Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India this High Court has jurisdiction and the petitioners are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this High Court.
- 16 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022
15. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Kusum Ingots to state that even if a small fraction of the cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of this Court, this High Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. It is stated that the question of territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be arrived at on the basis of averments made in the petition. It is stated that when a part of the cause of action arises within one or the other High Court, it will be for the petitioner to choose, as to before which High Court should he file the petition. The judgment in the case of Chokshi Arvind Jewellers has also been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners who has referred to paragraph no. 48 thereof. In that case the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay held that as a part of the cause of action had clearly arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, that Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
16. Among the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, as far as the judgments in
- 17 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 Madhyam Broadcasting Limited and Ajay Singh are concerned, the same deal with the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and as such, are not applicable in the instant cases. As far as the judgments in the Subrata Roy, SMS Pharmaceuticals, Dayle De'souza, Delhi Development Authority, Singer India Limited and M/s Bhandari Engineers are concerned, they are not on the aspect of maintainability of a writ petition before a High Court on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
17. In the case of Kusum Ingots, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was considering the question that whether the seat of Parliament or the Legislature of the State would be a relevant factor for determining the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court elaborately dealt with the aspect of cause of action to explain its usage in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was observed that the decisions of
- 18 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 the Supreme Court rendered on interpretation of Section 20(c) of the CPC, which section is pari materia Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, shall apply to writ proceedings also. The Court observed 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. Even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the High Court, it will have jurisdiction in the matter. The judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties6 was noticed in which the Court opined that mere service of notice would not give rise to any cause of action unless service of notice was an integral part of the cause of action. It was observed that, 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 give rise to a cause of action, which would confer jurisdiction on the 6 (1985) 3 SCC 217
- 19 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 Court. The Court opined that, passing legislation by itself does not confer any right itself to file any writ petition, unless a cause of action arises therefor. The distinction between legislation and executive action should be borne in mind while determining the said question. The Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"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.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
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
- 20 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens............."
18. In the case of Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India and Another7, while considering the question of territorial jurisdiction came up for consideration, in which, Clause(2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"7. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof.
8. Two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution on plain reading give clear indication that the High Court can exercise power to issue direction, order or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or 7 (2006) 6 SCC 207
- 21 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. (See ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu [(1994) 4 SCC 711] .)
9. By "cause of action" it is meant every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, a bundle of facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit. (See Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai [(1994) 6 SCC 322] .)
10. In a generic and wide sense (as in Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908) "cause of action" means every fact, which it is necessary to establish to support a right to obtain a judgment. (See Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar [(1998) 6 SCC 514 :
1998 SCC (Cri) 1471] .)
11. It is settled law that "cause of action" consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to claim relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. [See South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises (P) Ltd. [(1996) 3 SCC 443] ].
- 22 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022
12. The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense "cause of action" means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, as noted above, the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action". (See Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Assn. v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 294] .)
13. XXX XXX XXX XXX
14. The expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases of suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person (see Black's Law Dictionary). In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. In Words and Phrases (4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase "cause of action" in common legal parlance is existence of those facts, which give a party a right to judicial
- 23 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 interference on his behalf. (See Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 7 SCC 640 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 215)]."
19. In the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India8, after considering a gamut of decisions of the Supreme Court including the decisions in the cases of Kusum Ingots and Om Prakash Srivastava the Supreme Court has observed that, in order to maintain the writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that the legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction. The Court found on the facts of the case therein that the respondent permanently declared the appellant unfit for service due to a disease. A copy of the letter canceling the registration of the appellant as seaman was sent to the appellant at his native place in Bihar, where he was staying after he was found medically unfit. The representation was sent by the appellant from his Home State claiming disability compensation. The reply to the representation was addressed to the respondent therein, 8 (2014) 9 SCC 329
- 24 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 on his home address in Bihar, rejecting his claim for disability compensation. When the appellant was signed off and declared medically unfit, he returned back to his home in the District of Gaya in Bihar and thereafter, he made all claims and representations from his home address at Gaya. The appellant was suffering from serious heart disease and breathing problem, which forced him to stay in his native place, wherefrom he had been making all correspondence with regard to his disability compensation. It was therefore concluded that, prima facie, a part or fraction of cause of action arose before the Patna High Court.
20. The aforesaid judgments in the preceding paragraphs have also been considered and relied upon by the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Shanti Devi v. Union of India and Others9.
21. Admittedly the TDSAT is situated in Delhi, where it has passed the order impugned. The only basis of filing the instant petitions before this Court is that 9 (2020) 10 SCC 766
- 25 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 notices of the execution case were received by them within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Evidently, in the execution proceedings before the TDSAT, some coercive action was taken against Sri. G.Kariappa who, as reflected in Writ Petition No.19135/2022, is a Director of the Company and who was present before the TDSAT at New Delhi. The Directors and former Directors of the Company have been directed to be impleaded in the execution case by the TDSAT at New Delhi. It appears that notices have been issued to them for personal appearance.
22. It is pertinent to mention here that the Company had appeared before the TDSAT at New Delhi and contested the BP No.499/2015. Evidence was led on behalf of the Company and by way of evidence an affidavit was filed on 16.07.2018 by the aforesaid Sri G. Kariappa as is evident from perusal of the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the TDSAT in BP No.499/2015. Therefore, the Company and its Director had submitted themselves to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi.
- 26 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022
23. Though it is possible, as noticed in Kusum Ingots10, in certain instances notices issued to persons may constitute a cause of action. However, in the instant cases, the TDSAT is proceeding with the execution of its order under the provisions of the CPC as provided in the TRAI Act. An executing court can proceed under the provisions of Order 21 Rules 37 to 40 of the CPC and direct arrest and detention in civil prison of a judgment- debtor. Powers under Order 21 Rule 41(3) of the CPC ordering detention in civil prison of a person can be ordered where there is disobedience of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 41 of Order 21 CPC is evinced. Rules 41 to 59 of Order 21 CPC relate to the powers of the executing Court for attachment of properties. Order 21 Rule 58 provides for adjudication of claims to, or objections to attachment of properties before the executing Court. The adjudication therein can extend to determination of the right, title and interest in the property attached. Therefore, a wide spectrum of powers is available to the executing Court 10 (2004) 6 SCC 254 [Paragraph No.14]
- 27 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022 under the provisions of CPC, which are being exercised by the TDSAT at New Delhi.
24. In the facts and circumstances of the present cases, the notices issued to the petitioners would not be an integral part of the cause of action which can legitimately enable them to approach this High Court rather than the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi. As noticed above, the Company and its Director had appeared before the TDSAT at New Delhi and contested the BP No.499 of 2015 and led evidence. Moreover, the notice is for personal appearance. That by itself does not imply coercive process is being adopted. If due procedures are not followed by the executing court, remedy is always available to the judgment debtor under the provisions of the CPC or by a petition before the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the writ petition would lie within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi.
- 28 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND WP No. 19135 of 2022
25. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is not maintainable before this High Court.
26. It is open for the petitioners to move the Delhi High Court seeking appropriate relief. This petition is therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGR