M/S. CANON STEELS P. LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 1053 · Decided: 12-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
( 
( t 
r 
~ 
MIS. CANON STEELS P. LTD. 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 
NOVEMBER 12, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT P ASA VAT AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962; Section 130/Constitution of India, 1950; 
Article 227: 
Territorial jurisdiction of High Court-Cause of action not arises 
within-Discretionary jurisdiction-Invoking of-Held: When a part 
A 
.B 
c 
of cause of action arises within territorial jurisdiction of one or the 
other High Court, it will be for the petitioner to choose any one of 
them-However, merely because part of cause of action arises within D 
territorial jurisdiction of High Court, that by itself may not be a 
determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter 
on merit-High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary 
jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of Forum Conveniens-ln the 
instant case, Punjab and Haryana High Court justified in dismissing E 
the appeal on ground that both the acjjudication order and the appellate 
order not issued by any authority within its territorial jurisdiction-
Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of 'F arum Conveniens. '-invoking of 
The question which arose for determination in this appeal was 
F 
as to whether the Punjab & Haryana High Court had jurisdiction to 
deal with the matter in which the original order was passed by 
Adjudicating authority at Mumbai and the appellate order was G 
·-\ 
passed at Delhi by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate 
Tribunal in an appeal filed u/s.130 of the Customs Act, 1962. 
Appellant-assessee contended that the judgment in Kusum 
1053 
H 
1054 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Unionof!ndiaandAnr., is in its favour and on 
misreading of the decision the appeal has been dismissed by the High 
Court; that prima facie, the High Court was of the view that the 
appeal was not maintainable before it and, therefore, the appellant 
withdrew the said appeal to file it before the appropriate High Court; 
1 
' 
B that since the cause of action arose at Chandigarh, Punjab and 
f 
Haryana High Court has jurisdiction; and that the situs of framing 
> 
law or rule would give jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court. 
Respondent submitted that before moving the Punjab and 
C Haryana High Court, the Delhi High Court was moved, and at the 
request of the appellant, the High Court permitted to withdraw the 
appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. The Court must have the requisite territorial 
jurisdiction. An order passed on a writ petition questioning the 
constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act, whether interim or final 
keeping in view the provisions contained in clause (2).of Article 226 
of the Constitution oflndia, will have effect throughout the territory 
E oflndia subject of course to the applicability of the Act. 
[Para 6] [1056-F, G] 
1.2. The decision of this Court in the case of Nasirruddin v. STAT 
is an authority for the proposition that the place from where an 
appellate order or a revisional order is passed may give rise to a 
F part of cause of action although the original order was at a place 
outside the said area. When a part of the cause of action arises 
within one or the other High Court, it will be for the petitioner to 
choose his forum. [Para 8] [1058-B, C] 
G 
H 
Nasiruddin v. STAT, [1975] 2 SCC 671, referred to. 
1.3. Even if a small part of cause of action arises within the 
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not 
be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court 
to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may 
refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the 
~ 
( 
MIS. CANONSTEELSP.LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF 
1055 
,. 
CUSTOMS[PASAYAT,J.] 
doctrine of forum conveniens. [Para 9] [1058-C, D] 
. 
' 
Bhagat Singh Bugg av. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, AIR (1941) Cal 
670; Madan/al Jalan v. Madanial, AIR (1949) Cal 495; Bharat Coking 
Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (1997) CWN 122; 
I 
A 
S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India, (1994) 1 CHN 445 and New Horizons B 
Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR (1994) Del 126, referred to. 
1.4. The appellate order in this case was issued from CEST AT 
office at New Delhi. In that sense the Delhi High Court has 
jurisdiction to deal with the matter. [Para 10] [1058-E, F] 
c 
Kusumingots&AlloysLtd. v. UnionofindiaandAnr., [2004] 6 
sec 254, ref erred to. 
1.5. The Punjab & H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.