M/S. KUSUM INGOTS AND ALLOYS LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 841 · Decided: 28-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. KUS UM INGOTS AND ALLOYS LTD. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
APRIL 28, 2004 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226(2). 
"Cause of action"-Meaning of-Held: The material facts which are 
imperative for the plaintiff/petitioner to allege and prove in order to obtain C 
a judgment in his favour constitute the cause of action-However, the entire 
bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of action as w.hat ·is 
necessary to be proved before a petitioner can obtain a decree is the material 
facts also known as integral facts. 
"Cause of action "-Accrual of-Appellate or revisional order-Place D 
where passed-Held: As the order of the appellate authority constitutes a 
part of the cause of action, a writ petition or suit is maintainable at both 
the places i.e. the place where the original order was passed and also the 
place whete the appellate or revisional authority is constituted 
"Cause of action"-"Wholly or in part"-Forum convenience-Choic~ 
of forum-Held: Indisputably even if a small fraction of the cause of action 
accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction 
E 
in the matter-But the same by itself may not be considered to be a 
determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on 
merits-However, when a part of the cause of action arises within the. F 
jurisdiction of one or the other High Court, it is for the petitioner to choose 
his forum. 
"Cause of action "-Situs of-legislation/subordinate legislation/ 
delegated legislation-Validity of-Challenge to-Parliamentary Act-
Constitutiona/ity of-Writ petition filed before the High Court of Delhi- G 
Questioning of-Maintainability of-Held: A distinction between a legislation 
and an executive action must be borne in mind while determining whether 
a cause of action arose at a particular place-Passing of a legislation by 
itself does not confer any such right to file a writ petition-Situs of office of 
841 
lI 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Parliament, legislature of a State or authorities empowered to make a 
subordinate legislation would not by itself constitute a cause of action-It 
is well settled that a writ court would not determine a constitutional question 
in a vacuum-Hence, such a writ petition not maintainable in the High Court 
of Delhi only because the seat of the Union of India is in Delhi. 
B 
Territorial jurisdiction-Facts necessary to decide-Writ petition-
c 
D 
Entertaining of-Held: The question whether the Court has territorial 
jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition or not must be a"ived at on the basis 
of averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise thereof being 
immaterial. 
Writ petition-Questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary 
Act-Order passed by High Court-Applicability of-Held: Whether such an 
order is interim or final, keeping in view the provisions contained in Art. 
226(2), it will have effect throughout the territory of India, subject of course 
to the applicability of the Act. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Section 20(c)-lnterpretation of-Decisions rendered by Supreme Court 
on-Applicability to writ petition-Held: S. 20(c) and Art. 226(2); being tn 
pari materia, the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered on the interpretation 
E of S. 20(c) shall apply to writ proceedings also. 
F 
Words & Phrases: 
"Cause of action"-Meaning of-In the context of Art. 226(2) of the 
Constitution of India, 1950. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of Forum Conveniens-lnvoking of 
The appellant was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. 
G It obtained a loan form the Bhopal Branch of the State Bank of India. 
Respondent No. 2. issued a notice for repayment of the said loan purported to 
be in terms of the provisions ofSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial 
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 
Questioning the vires of the said Act, a writ petition was filed before 
H the Delhi High Court by the appellant, which was dismissed on the ground of 
KUSUM INGOTS AND ALLOYS LTD. v. U.0.1. 
843 
lack of territorial jurisdiction. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that as the constitutionality 
of a Parliamentary Act was in question, the High Court of Delhi had the 
requisite jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 
A 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that as no cause of action B 
arose within the territorial jurisdi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.