M/S Sawariya Traders vs Authorized Officer Indian Bank
2022 Latest Caselaw 976 MP

                                                       W.P. No.37/2022

                                1
          The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
                WRIT PETITION No. 37/2022
(M/s Sawariya Traders & Others vs. Authorized Officer, Indian
                          Bank, Indore)

Jabalpur, Dt. 20/01/2022 (through video conferencing)

      Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners.

      Shri Siddharth R. Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondent-Bank.

I.A. No.231/2022 for amendment is taken up and in

absence of any opposition, partly allowed. The I.A. is

disallowed to the extent petitioners prayed for impleadment of

the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Tribunal) as respondent No.2. In

our view, a quasi-judicial/judicial body is not required to be

impleaded in a petition filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution. The amendment be incorporated forthwith.

The parties are also heard on the objection of the Registry

regarding territorial jurisdiction as the petitioners and

respondent belong to District Dewas and Indore respectively

which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Indore Bench.

Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners

by placing reliance on recent order passed by the Supreme

Court in SLP (C) No.10911/2021 (State Bar Council of M.P.

W.P. No.37/2022

vs. Union of India) and on seven other judgments filed with list

of cases, urged that since a writ of mandamus/direction is

prayed for to the Tribunal for deciding the pending

securitization application and also the interim relief prayed for

therein, miniscule part of cause of action has certainly arisen

within the territory of the Principle Seat. Hence, invoking

Article 226(2) of the Constitution, the petition may be

entertained.

So far the aspect of forum conveniens is concerned, it is

submitted by Shri Agrawal that it will be more convenient for

the petitioners to prosecute this litigation before this Bench and

therefore, the said aspect is also in their favour.

Shri Siddharth R. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent-Bank submits that the Bank may have

opposition on merits of the matter, Bank has no objection

regarding territorial jurisdiction. Indeed, this Court certainly has

territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Shri Gupta, in

support of his contention, relied on 13 judgments of Supreme

Court and High Courts. On forum conveniens, Shri Gupta

submits that it will be more convenient for the respondent-Bank

to contest this matter before the Principle Seat.

W.P. No.37/2022

Considering the aforesaid, in our opinion, since a writ of

mandamus is prayed for against the Tribunal situated within the

territory of the Principle Seat, a miniscule part of cause of

action has arisen before this Bench. The forum conveniens

doctrine, in view of stand of parties, does not permit us to

relegate the parties to different Bench. In the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case and in view of the aforesaid stand of

parties, office objection is over-ruled.

List this matter for admission/further orders in the next

week.

                                (SUJOY PAUL)                     (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
                                   JUDGE                                 JUDGE


                      Priya.P




Digitally signed by priyanka
pithawe mishra
Date: 2022.01.21 16:21:39
+05'30'