Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Sawariya Traders vs Authorized Officer Indian Bank on 20 January, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
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 2 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 3
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'