Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
Rakesh Kumar Khandelwal. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 February, 2011 cites

M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 April, 2004

3. We do not think, this Court has territorial jurisdiction entertain the present writ petition even if the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Securitization of Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 and Rule 2(a) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. As noticed above, the entire "cause of action" as alleged in the petition arises out of notice dated 8th November, 2010 written by respondent No. 4 Bank from Jaipur to the petitioner at Jaipur. Notice also states that the property in question is located at Sanganer, Jaipur. These are undisputed facts. The question of territorial jurisdiction is clearly covered by the judgment held by Supreme WPC 711/2011 Page 4 of 7 Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254 . The relevant portions of the said judgment read:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 856 - S B Sinha - Full Document

U. P. Rashtriya Chini Milladhikari ... vs The State Of U. P. & Ors on 2 July, 1995

24. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his argument would contend that the situs of framing law or rule would give jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court and in support of the said contention relied upon the decisions of this Court in Nasiruddin v. STAT and U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P. So far as the decision of this Court in Nasiruddin v. STAT is concerned, it is not an authority for the proposition that the situs of legislature of a State or the authority in power to make subordinate legislation or issue a notification would confer power or jurisdiction on the High Court or a Bench of the High Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact this Court while construing the provisions of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 stated the law thus: (SCC p. 683, para 37) "37. The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court is incorrect. It is unsound because the expression „cause of action‟ in an application under WPC 711/2011 Page 6 of 7 Article 226 would be as the expression is understood and if the cause of action arose because of the appellate order or the revisional order which came to be passed at Lucknow then Lucknow would have jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the areas in Oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of the person applying for a writ. In such case an adverse appellate order might be the cause of action. The expression „cause of action‟ is well known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises wholly within the specified Oudh areas, it is indisputable that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter. If the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas in Oudh it would be open to the litigant who is the dominus litis to have his forum conveniens. The litigant has the right to go to a court where part of his cause of action arises. In such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular court. The choice is by reason of the jurisdiction of the court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the court. Similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen part within specified areas in Oudh and part outside the specified Oudh areas, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings either at Allahabad or Lucknow. The court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the court is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 52 - K Singh - Full Document

Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc vs U.O.I. & Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 April, 2004

In spite of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 upholding the constitutional validity of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Khandelwal has filed the present writ petition praying for following relief:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 1540 - B Kumar - Full Document
1