Satishkumar Sharma Director of Richmore vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Jayant Patel, J.—The short facts of the case appear to be that the respondent No. 2 and 3 are the officers of the company registered under the Companies Act and is having registered office at Delhi. The petitioner is located at Gujarat. The Apparel House was projected and is constructed by Apparel Export Promotion Council (hereinafter referred to as the ''Council''). The petitioner applied for allotment of space in such Apparel House, which is located at Gurgaon. It appears that the application of the petitioner was accepted, and the provisional allotment letter was issued by the Council on 11.6.2007, whereby the petitioner was called upon to make payment of Rs. 12,29,970/-, and it was also conveyed to the petitioner that the possession shall be handed over on leave & license basis, but the agreement will have to be entered for such purpose. As per the petitioner, the payment in part was made, and the request was made to handover the possession. Whereas, it is the case of the respondent Council that payment was not made as per the terms and condition, and therefore, the possession was not handed over. The aforesaid resulted into dispute between the petitioner and the respondent Council, which has led the petitioner to file the present petition before this Court.

Heard Mr. Ansari learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pranav Trivedi with Mr. Desai learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3, and Ms. Mandavia learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5.

The aspect, which deserves consideration in the present petition is the point of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that this Court has the jurisdiction, since the petitioner is located at Anand of Gujarat State, is doing business at Gujarat, and is having factory at Gujarat, and he has no capacity to file petition at High Court of Delhi or the High Court Punjab and Haryana, and the cause of action has in part accrued within the territory of Gujarat.

Whereas on behalf of the respondent Council, it has been contended that the cause of action has accrued only in territory of Punjab and Haryana High Court, since the Apparel House is located at Gurgaon, or in any case since the registered office of the respondent Council is located at Delhi, the petitioner has to ventilate grievance by filing appropriate petition, if permissible in law before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana or at High Court of Delhi and this Court may not have the territorial jurisdiction.

It appears that it is an admitted position that the Apparel House is a place where the showroom was to be allotted to the petitioner on payment of requisite amount. Further, the application of the petitioner for allotment of the showroom at the Apparel House, though made from Gujarat is processed at Delhi. The communication for provisional allotment is made from Delhi to the petitioner, but the provisional allotment cannot be termed as concluded contract. It is only after the requisite payment is made by the petitioner and the leave and license agreement is entered into, and the possession is handed over, it would be concluded contract. The payment to be made was at Delhi and leave and license agreement could be at Delhi or at Gurgaon. In any case the possession of the property was to be handed over at Gurgaon.

Under these circumstances, it can be said that the cause of action has accrued outside the territory of Gujarat State. Further, the cancellation of the allotment, which is the basis for the present petition is relating to property located within the territory of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Gurgaon.

Under these circumstances, as the cause of action cannot be said as having accrued within the territory of Gujarat State, this Court will have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, which is raised in the present petition by the petitioner.

The reference may be made to the decision of Apex Court in case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, and in case of the Union of India and Others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and Another,

Under these circumstances, as this Court is having no territorial jurisdiction for the cause, which is subject matter of the present petition, the petition cannot be entertained.

Hence, the present petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. IR vacated.

It is observed that this Court has not gone into the merits of the cause, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief or not and on merits of the matter, the contention of both the sides shall remain open.

Mr. Ansari learned Counsel for the petitioner states that interim relief be continued for some time, so as to enable the petitioner to approach before the higher forum.

Considering the facts and circumstances, as the petition has been dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, such request is declined.