UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus ADANI EXPORTS LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 31-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
ADANI EXPORTS LTD. AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 31, 2001. 
(, 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Jt 
Constitution of India, 1950. 
Article 226(2)-High Courts-Exercise of Territorial Jurisdiction-Held, 
entire facts pleaded in support of cause of action must be looked into-Facts 
pleaded must constitute a cause of action giving rise to dispute within the 
territorial jurisdiction ~f the concerned court-Facts pleaded must have nexus 
or relevance with dispute or tis involved in the case-Held, facts pleaded in 
support of cause of action have no connection with the dispute involved in the 
matter to con.fer territorial jurisdiction-Considerations for territorial jurisdic-
tion in criminal and civil disputes not always similar-Existence of registered 
office,~( company within territorial jurisdiction ~f Court would not con.fer 
automatic jurisdiction upon it. 
Respo.ndents filed Special Civil Applications in the Gujarat High 
Court at Ahmedabad seeking benefit of Pass Book Scheme found in para-
graph 54 of Import Export Policy introduced by appellants w .e.f. 1st April, 
1995 in relation to certain credits to be given on export of Shrimps. 
Appellants ~pposed the applications and specifically contended that only 
High Court at Chennai had jurisdiction and High Court at Ahmedabad 
did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the special applications. 
High Court rejected the said objection holding that application can be 
tiled at the place where Registered Office of the Company is situated and 
allowed the special· applications. Hence th~ present appeal by Union of · 
India and others. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Appellants contended that High Court at Ahmedabad did not have 
G 
jurisdiction to entertain the special civil applications since no part of the 
cause of action based on which the applications were filed arose within its 
territorial jurisdiction; and that factum of respondents having executed a 
bank guarantee and a bond at Ahmedabad has no direct nexus or bearing 
with disputes involved in the appl!cations and has nothing to do with the 
H 
631 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
cause of action for challenging the denial of benefit of the Pass-Book 
Scheme. 
B 
Respondents contended thafa substantial part of cause of action had 
arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of ,the High Court at A~medabad 
in view of facts mentioned in the applications; that relief claimed for 
cancellation of guarantee and Bond executed at Ahmedabad gave rise to 
part of cause of action at Ahmedabad; and that since High Court had 
elaborately dealt with the merits of the case and given a finding, the same 
should not be interfered with, in the interest of justice. 
C 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD : 1. The view that the existence of the registered office of a 
Company would ipso facto give a cause of action to the High Court within· 
whose jurisdiction the registered office of such Company is situated, is not 
correct.. [636-H; 637-A] 
Union of India & Ors. v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. & Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 
646, distinguished. 
2. It is an admitted fact that none of the appellants are stationed at · 
E 
Ahmedabad. It is also an admitted fact that the pass book in question, 
benefit.of which the respondent is seeking in the civil applications, is issued 
by an authority who is stationed at Chennai. The Designated Authority 
F 
who is the competent person ~n respect of the matters concerning the Pass 
.; 
. Book Scheme and who discharges various functions under the Scheme is 
also stationed at Chennai. The entries in the pass book under .the con-
cerned Scheme are to be made by the authorities at Chennai. The export of 
prawn made by the respondents and the import of the inputs benefits of 
which the respondents are seeking in the applications, also will have to be 
made .through the saine Port i.e., Chennai. [638-B-C] 
G 
3.1. Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India speaks of the territo-
rial jurisdiction of the High Court. In order to confer jurisdiction on a 
High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application, the 
High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of 
the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower 
H 
the court to decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within itS 
.. 
-· i 
U.0.1. v. ADANI EXPORTS LTD. 
633 
jurisdiction. Each and every fac.t pleaded by the respondents in th

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