...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ABHILASH VAIDYANATHAN, ADVOCATE)
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
AND:
...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).
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
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
TDSAT
Company
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
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.
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
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
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
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
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
TRAI Act
- 11 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
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
CPC
- 12 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
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
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
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.
2024 SCC Online Bom 793
- 15 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
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
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
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
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
(1985) 3 SCC 217
- 19 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
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
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
(2006) 6 SCC 207
- 21 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
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
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
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,
(2014) 9 SCC 329
- 24 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
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
(2020) 10 SCC 766
- 25 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
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
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
(2004) 6 SCC 254 [Paragraph No.14]
- 27 -
WP No. 24160 of 2022 C/W
WP No. 17726 of 2022 AND
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
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
