Jogesh Singh Sondhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1739 Del

JUDGMENT

Hima Kohli, J.

1. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 21st August, 2007 , time was sought by the petitioner to address arguments on the maintainability of the writ petition in this Court, in the context of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2. The relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for issuance of directions to respondent No. 2, to release US$ 10,883.33 to the petitioner on account of conveyance allowances, allegedly wrongly deducted by the respondent No. 2.

3. Pursuant to the order dated 21st August, 2007, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit on 7th September, 2007 stating inter alia that as the petitioner is residing and working for gain at New Delhi, under respondent No. 1, Ministry of Railways, which finances and controls respondent No.2, and the offices of respondent No. 1 are situated in Delhi, the present writ petition is maintainable in Delhi. It is further stated that the agreement dated 5th July, 2001 between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 was executed at New Delhi, though the respondent No. 2 had admittedly shifted its head office to Gurgaon in the latter part of the year 2002.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that irrespective of respondent No. 2 shifting its office from the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the cause of action still continues to accrue in favor of the petitioner and against respondent No. 2 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. She further submits that this Court has territorial jurisdiction in view of the fact that the office of respondent No. 1, the Ministry of Railways is also situated in Delhi.

5. A perusal of the writ petition and the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner would show that the petitioner has been corresponding in respect of the subject matter of the dispute, with the respondent No. 2 at Gurgaon. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is not seeking any relief against the respondent No. 1 and the relief is directed solely against the respondent No. 2. It is also stated by the petitioner herself that the respondent No. 2 has shifted its office from the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to Gurgaon, in the State of Haryana, since the year 2002. It is pertinent to note that the dispute arose with the respondent No. 2 only thereafter in the year 2003, when the petitioner returned from deputation to India in November, 2003.

6. It is settled law 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 exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In certain cases, the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of `forum conveniens'. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the following judgments:

(i) Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. .

(ii) National Textiles Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Haribox Swalram and Ors. .

(iii) Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. .

7. The Supreme Court observed in the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. (supra) as below:

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. (See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney , Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal (1995) 49 CWN 359, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (1997) CHN 122, S.S. Jain and Co. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) CWN 445 and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India .

8. In the case of National Textiles Corporation Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court held as below:

10. ...Cause of action as understood in civil proceedings means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. It is the bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. Each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned.

9. The aforesaid position of law has been followed and reiterated by this High Court in various cases, including the following:

(i) West Coast Ingots (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise .

(ii) Ex. Rect./GD Vinod Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. 2007 (I) AD (Delhi) 284

10. Thus the expression `cause of action' means the circumstances resulting in breach of right or the immediate occasion for the party to react. The expression will take in its fold the whole bundle of material facts which a party must prove in order to succeed and includes the circumstances and situations that entitle a party to maintain an action in court. In the present case, the cause of action at the time of institution of the writ petition, even as per the petitioner, arose in Gurgaon for the reason that the dispute with the respondent No. 2 arose only when the petitioner came back to India, after returning on deputation from Malaysia in November, 2003, by which time, the respondent No. 2 had relocated itself at Gurgaon. The position of law as laid down in the aforementioned judgments makes it evident that merely because a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, it does not mean that the said court is compelled to exercise its discretion in that respect. The party may still be relegated to the court within whose jurisdiction the major part of the cause of action has accrued. Applying the guidelines laid down in the aforesaid cases to the facts of the present case, it emerges that the contesting respondent in the present case is not respondent No. 1, but respondent No. 2, as the petitioner has sought the relief against the said respondent alone. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the petitioner is working in the Ministry of Railways, respondent No. 1 and that the offices of the said Ministry are situated in Delhi, cannot be a basis for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as the petition is directed against respondent No. 2. Taking into consideration the averments made by the petitioner as also the additional affidavit, it emerges that the grievance of the petitioner is that after he was sent on deputation by respondent No. 2 to Malaysia and he came back to India on 24th November, 2003, respondent No. 2 arbitrarily withheld/recovered huge amounts from him. It is not denied by the petitioner that when the aforesaid action was taken by respondent No.2, it had already relocated its offices from Delhi to Gurgaon, State of Haryana. Reference is also made in the writ petition to the legal notice issued on behalf of the petitioner to respondent No. 2. A perusal of the aforesaid notice shows that the same is addressed to respondent No. 2 at Gurgaon and not in Delhi. Thus the petitioner himself understood the cause of action to have accrued in his favor against respondent No. 2 who is now situated in Gurgaon. Consequently, the relief sought by the petitioner would also lie in a court having the appropriate jurisdiction to try and entertain a petition. The determinative and predominant factors which have given the petitioner the cause of action to file the present petition have arisen only after the year 2003, by which time, admittedly, the respondent No. 2 had shifted its offices from Delhi to Gurgaon, in the State of Haryana.

11. That the agreement in question was executed in Delhi comprises only a small part of the cause of action, taking into consideration the fact that as on the date of the dispute arising between the parties, the respondent No.2 had relocated itself in Delhi and even the petitioner was corresponding with respondent No. 2 at Delhi. That the petitioner himself resides and works for gain in Delhi or that the petitioner is appointed and working in the Ministry of Railways, respondent No. 1 herein, whose principal office is situated in Delhi, cannot be termed valid considerations for warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court.

12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court does not deem it appropriate to exercise its discretion to entertain the present petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek his remedies by approaching the appropriate court vested with the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the petition. The writ petition is dismissed in liming.