TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION MUST ESTABLISH CAUSE OF ACTION, MERE LOCATION OF AN OFFICE IN A STATE NOT CONFER TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION – SC
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the principles governing territorial jurisdiction and cause of action in the context of writ petitions. The bench, comprising of Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, emphasized the importance of establishing a nexus between the cause of action and the jurisdiction of the court. The Court ruled that the mere location of an office in a particular state does not automatically confer territorial jurisdiction. The judgment also highlighted the significance of the concept of forum conveniens, stating that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction, it should not be the sole factor determining the appropriate forum for the case. The decision sets an important precedent for future cases involving territorial jurisdiction and cause of action.
Justice Dipankar Datta stated, “The integral facts pleaded must constitute a cause empowering the high court to decide the dispute and, at least, a part of the cause of action should arise within its jurisdiction.” The Court also remarked, “Mere office location in a particular state does not establish an integral part of the cause of action.” These observations underline the necessity for a clear connection between the cause of action and the jurisdiction of the court.
The judgment further addressed the issue of deletion of the appellant from the array of respondents. The Court held that the High Court should not dismiss applications seeking deletion without proper consideration. It emphasized that the petition memo must demonstrate how the integral facts pleaded support the cause of action within the court’s jurisdiction.
Additionally, the Supreme Court clarified that if a notification issued by a state government is being challenged, the appropriate court for seeking a remedy would be the high court of the state where the notification was issued. The judgment highlighted the importance of judicial scrutiny of state notifications within the jurisdiction of the respective high courts.
The Court’s decision does not preclude the writ petitioners from seeking appropriate remedies in accordance with the law to challenge the notifications.
Date of Decision: 14th March, 2023
THE STATE OF GOA VS SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE
