Delhi High Court
Deep Singh vs The Institute Of Cost Accountants ... on 30 October, 2015
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6772/2014
DEEP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aslam Ahmed for Mr. PUneet Singh
Bindra, Advocate
versus
THE INSTITUTE OF COST ACCOUNTANTS
OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjib Sen, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
G.S. Chaturvedi, Mr. Pijush Kanti Roy and Mr.
P.K. Roy, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 30.10.2015
1. For the first time, the respondent has raised orally at the bar, a
preliminary objection qua the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Mr.
Sen, who appears alongwith Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi says that in terms of
clause 8 of the instructions issued by the respondent, the jurisdiction
qua any dispute arising out of matters pertaining to examination shall
lie only with the Calcutta courts.
2. Mr. Sen concedes though, that this objection is not taken either
in the counter affidavit or even in the additional affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent, as recently, as on 27.10.2015.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also concedes that there
is no averment with regard to the manner in which territorial
jurisdiction of this court is attracted to the instant matter.
4. Notice in this petition was issued as far back as on 30.09.2014,
therefore, more than an year has passed since notice was issued. It is
not as if, no cause of action has arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of this court.
5. In these circumstances, if the principles analogous to Section 21
of the CPC are applied then, this objection, ought to have been taken,
in the first instance, at the earliest possible occasion. This is because
Mr Sen's objection is with respect to the place where the action is
instituted i.e. the place of suing.
5.1 Mr. Sen though emphasises that the objection as to the
jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. While this submission is right;
in so far as the objection to territorial jurisdiction is concerned, as
indicated above, it should be raised at the first instance unless non-
consideration of this aspect results in consequent failure of justice.
5.2 In this context, the observations of the Supreme Court in
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr. (2005) 7
SCC 791, in paragraph 30 at page 803-804 being apposite, are
extracted hereafter:
"......We are unable to uphold the contention. The
jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several
categories. The important categories are (i) Territorial or
local jurisdiction; (ii) Pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii)
Jurisdiction over the subject matter. So far as territorial
and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to
such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible
opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of
issues. The law is well settled on the point that if such
objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed
to be taken at a subsequent stage. Jurisdiction as to
subject matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on
a different footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the suit by reason of any
limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it
cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a
court having no jurisdiction is nullity....."
6. Mr. Sen's other concern is that the respondent could be dragged
to various examinations centres if, a ruling on territorial jurisdiction is
not given as prayed.
6.1. To my mind, this difficulty may not arise in other cases if, the
respondent display alacrity in the matter as it ought to have in this
case, as well. Therefore, the objection with regard to the territorial
jurisdiction is rejected.
7. List the petition on 14.01.2016.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
OCTOBER 30, 2015
yg
