AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
The genesis of the dispute lies in the action of freezing undertaken by the Station House Officer („SHO‟), Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vide order dated 17.11.2024 (“Freezing Order”) in relation to an FIR dated 12.03.2024 (“Said FIR”) registered in the Police Station, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, whereby, the petitioner‟s residential house at Himachal Pradesh as also its two cars, both registered at Himachal Pradesh were seized.
The said Freezing Order came to be confirmed by the Competent Authority under Section 68(f)(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“Act”), which in turn was assailed before the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (“SAFEMA”), which vide the order dated 19.03.2026 (“Impugned Order”), dismissed the petitioner‟s appeal. It is this order which is sought to be assailed in the present petition.
The Supreme Court in the case of Siddharth S. Mookerjee and Anr. v. Madhab Chand Mitter and Anr.,1 has held has under:
“7.Treating the High Court of Delhi as the jurisdictional High Court, the respondent no.1 has filed petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Notice was issued on the said petitions on 04th October, 2023, on the adjudication of jurisdictional aspect. This is what has brought the appellants before this Court.
8.Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 contends that the jurisdictional High Court in the instant case ought to be treated as the High Court of Delhi, inasmuch as the judgment impugned before the High Court was passed by the NCDRC at Delhi.
9.In our opinion, that can hardly be treated as a ground to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. The respondent No.1 ought to have approached the High Court of Calcutta being aggrieved by the impugned judgment as the entire cause of action in the present case has arisen in Kolkata, where the patient was operated for ovarian cancer on 24th February, 2012, and expired on 30th July. 2014. The complaint case was filed at Kolkata based on the aforesaid cause of action. Merely, because the NCDRC has allowed the revision petitions filed by the appellants and the respondent no.2 would not be a ground to vest jurisdiction in the High Court of Delhi.”
Thus, even when jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is invoked, the Court is duty bound to examine where the material, integral and essential part of cause of action has arisen.
This Court is of the opinion that the factum of the Impugned Order having been passed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court may have given rise to a part of cause of action, however, the dispute itself has originated from the freezing order which was passed by the SHO in Himachal Pradesh, qua investigation proceedings pending in Himachal Pradesh, and further freezing properties in Himachal Pradesh.
In view thereof, the petition stands dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach the jurisdiction High Court.
All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
Footnotes
- 1.2024 SCC OnLine SC 4285