Holding

A High Court can exercise jurisdiction only if the facts pleaded constitute a cause of action that arises, wholly or in part, within its territorial jurisdiction; the mere existence of a registered office or unrelated business activities does not confer such jurisdiction.

Summary

The Union of India and others appealed against the Gujarat High Court’s order allowing special civil applications filed by Adani Exports Ltd. and others seeking the benefit of a Pass‑Book Scheme under the Import‑Export Policy for shrimp exports. The central issue was whether the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad possessed territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution to entertain the applications. The respondents argued that a substantial part of the cause of action arose in Ahmedabad, citing business operations, export‑import orders, and the execution of a bank guarantee and bond there. The Supreme Court held that mere existence of a registered office or unrelated business activities in the court’s territory does not create a cause of action; the facts must have a direct nexus with the dispute, which they did not. Consequently, the Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s judgment and ordered the transfer of the applications to the Madras High Court, Chennai.

Issues considered

Whether the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) to entertain the special civil applications challenging denial of the Pass‑Book Scheme benefit.
Whether the presence of a company's registered office within a High Court's territorial area automatically confers jurisdiction.
Whether facts such as business operations, export‑import orders, and execution of a bank guarantee/bond in Ahmedabad constitute a cause of action giving rise to jurisdiction.
Whether the High Court should have decided the jurisdictional objection as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XIV Rule 2
Constitution of Indias. Article 226(2)

Subjects

Territorial jurisdictionArticle 226High Court jurisdictionPass‑Book SchemeSpecial civil applicationRegistered officeCause of actionTransfer of proceedings

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
ADANI EXPORTS LTD. AND ANR.

OCTOBER 31, 2001.
(,

[N. SANTOSH HEGDE
Jt
AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] B

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
c
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 D
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- E
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.
F
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.

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.

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
..
B
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

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]
D
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
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-
F
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
U.0.1. v. ADANI EXPORTS LTD. 633
jurisdiction. Each and every fac.t pleaded by the respondents in their A
application does not ipso facto lead t~ the conclusion that those facts give
rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless
those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis
that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the
dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so.as to B
confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. [640-B-C]

Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors., [1994]
4 sec 711 at 713, relied on.

3.2. None of the facts pleaded in the petition, fall into the category of c
bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a
dispute which would confer· territorial jurisdiction on the cour~s at
Ahmedabad. The fact that the ~espondent~ are carrying on the business of
export and import or that they are receiving the export and import orders
at Ahmedabad or that their documents and payments for exports and
imports are sent/made at Ahmedahad, has no connection whatsoever with D
the dispute that is involved in the applications. Similarly, the fact that the
credit of duty claimed in respect of exports that were made from Chennai
were handled by the respondents from Ahmedabad hav~ also no connec-
tion whatsoever with t}le actioni; of the appellants impugned in the applica-
tion. The non-granting and denied of credit in the pass-book having an E
ultimate effect,' if any, on tlie business of the respondents at Ahmedabad
would not also give rise to any such cause of action to a court at Ahmcdahad
to adjudicate on the actions complained against the appellants. Inclusion
of totally extraneous claim in the writ petition, with regard to bank guar-
antee and Bond executed by respondents, cannot he construed as being a
factor giving rise to a cause of action. [640-D-F; 641-D] F

4. The consideratio~ that arises_in deciding the question of territorial
jurisdiction in cases involving criminal offences may not always apply to
cases involving civil disputes like the present civil applications. [642-G]

NavinchandraN. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, [2000] 7 SCC · G
-· i
640, distinguished. ·

5. The impugned judgment being a judgment of a court having no
territorial jurisdiction, the judgment has to be set aside. However, the
special civil applications cannot be dismissed -on this ground and arc H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A hereby directed to he transferred to the High Court of Madras at Chennai
forthwith. [643-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6320-6321 of
2000.

B From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.2000/3.4.2000 of the Gujarat
High Court in S.C. Application No. 3282 and 3279 of 1999.

Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Jaideep Gupta, Tara Chand
Shanna, S.N. Terdol and B .K. Prasad for the Appellants.

C F.S. Nariman and Ashok Desai, Vikram Nankani, Subhash C. Sharma,
Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Ms. Rakhi Roy and Ms. Bina Gupta, for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SANTOSH HEGDE, J. These_'civil appeals are prefeired by the Union
D of India and Others challenging the judgment and order of the High c.ourt of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad made in Special Civil Application Nos.3282/99 and
3279/99 wherein the High Court allowed the said civil applications and granted
"the relief as prayed for by the petitioner therein.

Though in these appeals, principal co11tention involved pertains to the
E entitlement of tl1e i'espondents herein to the benefit of the Pass Book Scheme
found in paragi:aph 54 of t11e Import Export Policy introduced by the appellants
herein w.e.f. 1st April, 199.5in1'elation to certain credits to be given on export
of Shrimps, the appellant firstly challenges. before us the territorial jurisdiction
of the Bigh Court of Gujar~t at Mun~dabad to entertain "the civil applications·
F and grant relief in favoµr of the respondents.·

Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Soiicitor G~neral of India anq · •
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned counsel appearing for-the aprellants, cont~nded :
that the High Court at Ahrned~bad did not have' the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the special civil applications since!!9--part offue caus~ of action ?ased
G on which. th~ applications were filed ai:ose witliirr the territorial jurisdiction of
fue High Comt at Alrmedabad. They contended that though d1is ground was
specifically urged, the High Court ~rongly placing relianc'e on a judgment cif
this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. OswalWoollen Mills Ltd.
& Ors., [1984] 2 sec 646 rejected the said objection of the appellants and
granted the relief which, of course, the aiJpell~ts:contend even on merits is
H
U.O.I. v. ADANI EXPORTS LTD. [HEGDE, J.] 635
not liable to be granted. They contend that since the question of jurisdiction A
in this case goes to the root of the matter, this issue should be first decided and
if it is held in favour of the appellants, then ipso facto the judgment under
appeal is liable to be set aside as having been delivered by a court of no
·~
jurisdiction.

Per contra, Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the B
respondents, contended that it is inc01Tect to say that no part to the cause of
action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Ahinedabad.
According to the learned counsel, a substantial pmt of the cause of action has
arisen withiµ the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Ahmedabad, hence,
the judgment in question cannot be invalidated on this preliminary ground. He C
placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Navinchandra
N. Majithi'a V. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2000] 7 sec 640.

Having considered the arguments addressed oh behalf of the parties and
. having peruseq the records, we are of the considered opinion that the question
of jurisdiction should be first decided by us before going into the merits of the D
case in hand. As a matter offact, we feel it would have been more appropriate
on the facts _of the.se ~ases if the High Court had proceeqed.under Order XIV
Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code by deciding the question of jurisdiction as a
preliminmy issue.first instead of deciding the case on merit.

For deciding the above issue, it is necessary to first notice the contentions E
raised in the special civil applications 'to establish the territorial jurisdiction of
the High Court. Contentions regarding the ca~se of action and the territorial
jurisdiction of the High Court are pleaded in the applications at para 16 which ,
. read thus:
F
"The petitioners c;uTy oil business of export and import from
. -Ahmedabad. The orders for export and i~port are placed from and
executed from Ahmedabad. The documents anc;t payments for exp6rt
and imports (lre.sent/made at Alunedabad. The credit of duty claimed
in.respect of exp01ts were handled frorp. Ahmedabad since export
orders were received at Ahmedabad and payments also received at G
Ahmedabad. The non-granting and denial of utilisation of the credit in
the said Pass Book shall effect the business of the Petitioners at
Ahmedabad. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have regional offices at
Ahmedabad. A substantial part of the cause of action has arisen within
the jurisdiction ~f this Honourable Court. This Honourable Court has
H
636 SUPREI\JE COURT ~EPORTS . [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A therefore, jurisdictimi to entertain, try and 9"ispose of this Petition." ·

·The appellants herein whifo opposing die civil.applicati9i1s lia.d specifi-
cally pleaded. that the courts at Ahrnedabad did not have the tenitorialjuris-
diction to adjudicate upon the claims of the teS'pondents $ince ·no P<l!t of the
cause of action has arisen within the ten"itorial jurisdiction of the High eourt
B at Ahmedabad. In their statement of objection rebutting the pleading~ of the·
respondents, the appellants had contended tlms :-

"With reference to para 16 of ilie 1'>etition, I say that since the Pass
· Book Licence w~s issued at Chennai by ilie designatect authority at
c Chemiai and the ti:ansactions concerning tl1e said pass book wer~ made
·from Chennai port and cause of action is lying atChennai, it is in order
that tl1e case is transfe1Ted to the jlllisdiction of tl1e Hon'ble High Court
of Madras at Chemiai notwithstanding tlie petitioners having their
office at Ahmedabad from where the export import plam1ing worlc was ·
being executed".
D
From the above, it is seen that the. appellants had taken a. serious objec~
ti on as to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Ahmedabad, contend-
ing that·it is the .High Court at Chennai which alone h~d the jmisdiction to
entertain the applications as no part of tl1e cause of action had arisen within
the territorial jurisdiction of ilie High Court at Ahmedabad. Hence, the appel"
E
lants had prayed for transfer of the case to the High Court at C11enna~.

· We witl now consider how the High Court dealt with this issue. Having
noticed the objection filed by the appellants in regard to its territorial jurisdic~
ti on, the High Court following ·tlle judgment of this Court in the· ".ase of Union
of India v. Osival Woollen (supra) held that in view of the observations of thi~
Court in the said.case, a civil application can be filed ~t the place where ili~
registered office of the Company is situated and having regard to tl1e fact that
die registered office ·of the respond.ent-Company is situated.at Ahm:edabad,- i(
accepted the argument of tl1e learned counsel for the respondent iliat it is not
necessary to discuss ·this issue any furtl1er, meaning thereby it accepted tlle
G I
contention of the respondent's counsel that the High Court at AJu:nedabad had ·~

tlle territorial jurisdiction to decide the application. • ·

We are unable to accept this finding of the High Court. The view ·of the
High Court that this Court in ilie case of Oswal Woollen.(supra) had held tl;lat
H the existence of the registered office of a Company would ipso facto give a
U.0.1. v. ADAN! EXPORTS LTD. [HEGDE, J.] 637
cause of action to the High Com1 widiin whose jurisdiction the registered office A
of such Company is situated, is not correct. As a matter of fact, in the case of
Oswal Woollen (supra), the question of territorial jurisdiction in the sense with
which we are concerned now, did not arise at all. In that case, the observations
of the Court were as follows :

'\Having regard to the fact that the registered office of die Company B
is at Ludhiana and the principal respondents against whom die primary
relief is sought are at New Delhi, one would have expected the writ
petition to be filed eidier in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana or
in the Delhi High Court. The writ petitioners, however, have chosen
the Calcutta High Court as the forum perhaps because one of die C
interlocutory reliefs which is sought is in respect of a consigmnent of
beef tallow which has arrived at die Calcutta Port... We do not desire
to probe further into die question whether the writ petition was filed
by design m accident in die Calcutta High Court when the office of
the Company is in die State of Punjab and all the principal respondents
are in Delhi." D

It is in that context of noticing dle motive of the parties concerned in that
case in choosing a forum, die above obse1vation as to die place of the registered
office of the Company was incidentally made in die judgment. Having perused
the judgment in Oswal 's case (supra), we are of the opinion diat that judgment
is no authority to decide as to the requirement of law in regard to establishing E
the territ01ial jurisdiction of a court. We must say in all fairness, Mr. Desai,
learned senior counsel, has not placed any reliance on this judgment nor on the
basis of die finding of the High Court in this case in regard to its territorial
jurisdiction. He, however, contends that from the facts naITated in the civil
applications, more so in Paragraph 16 of the application, it is crystal clear iliat F
a substantial part of the cause of action has arisen within die jurisdiction of die
High Court at Ahmedabad. He pointedly refeITed to the bundle of facts men-
tioned in Paragraph 16 of the application as also die additional fact pleaded in
Paragraph 7 of the application in regard to the respondents having furnished
a bank guarantee as also a Bond in favour of the appellants. He pointed out
... that the bank guarantee and die Bond were executed by die respondents at
G
Ahmedabad, hence, at least on diis count a part of the cause of action has arisen
at Ahmedabad.

We will now examine whether any of the facts mentioned in Paragraph
16 of the applications or for iliat matter in the entire special civil applications H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A would give rise to any part of the cause of action at Ahmedabad, at least for
the pmpose of confeffing tenito1ial jmisdiction on the High Court at Ahmedabad.
At this stage, it is relevant to mention that it is an admitted fact that none of
the respondents in the civil applications (Appellants herein) are stationed at
Abmedabad. 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
B
authority who is stationed at Chennai. The Designated Authority who is the
competent person in 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 concerned Scheme are to be
made by the authorities at Chemiai. The export of prawn made by the respond-
c ents and the import of the inputs benefit of which the respondents are seeking
in the applications, also will have to be made through i:he same Port i.e.
Chennai.

Inspite of the above admitted facts, tl1e respondents herein plead that as
per tl1e plea raised by them in paragraph 16 of the special civil application, the
D following facts give rise to the cause of action confen"ing te~Titorial jmisdiction
on the Court at Ahmedabad. They are :-

(i) the respondents call"y on their business of export and impo1t from
Abmedabad;
E (ii) their orders of export and imp01t are placed from and are ex-
ecuted at Abmedabad ;

(iii) documents and paym@nts for export and import are sent/made at ~
'
Alunedabad ;

F (iv) the credit of duty claimed in respect of expo1ts were handled from
Alnnedabad since export orders were received at Abmedabad
and payments also received at Ahm<:dabad ;

(v) non-granting and denial of utilisation of the credit in the pass-
book will affect the business of the respondents at Alnnedabad;
G
(vi) respondents have executed a bank guarantee tlU"ough their battle-
4I
-
ers at Ahmedabad as well as a Bond at Alunedabad.

Though it is also contended in para 16 of tl1e application that the appel-
lants have their office at Ahme~abad, that contention has not been pressed since
H
U.0.1. v. ADANI EXPORTS LTD. [HEGDE, J.] 639
it is clear from the records that none of these appellants have their office at A
Ahmedabad. De hors this fact, if we take into consideration the other facts
enumerated hereinabove in suppo1t of the cause of action pleaded by the
respondents, it is seen that none of these facts is in any way com1ected with
the relief sought for by the respondents in their civil applications so as to
constitute the cause of action at Ahmedabad.
B
Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India which speaks of the territorial
jurisdiction of the High Court reads : -

"The power confened by clause (1) to issue directions, orders 9r
writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised
by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the_ territories
c
within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the
exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Govern-
ment or authority or the residence of such person is not within those
territories."
D
It is clear from the above constitutional provision that a High Court can
exercise the jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of
action, wholly or in-part, arises. This provision in the Constitution has come
up for consideration in a number of cases before this Comt. In this regard, it
would suffice for us to refer to the observations of this Comt in the case of Oj,/
and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors., [1994] 4 SCC E
711 at 713) wherein it was held :

"Under Article 226 a High Court can exercise the power to issue
directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of l'lllY of the fundamen-
tal rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other
F
purpose if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding
that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the
person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within
the said tenitories. The expression "cause of action" means that bundle
of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to G
a judgment in his favour by the Court. Therefore; in determining the
objection of lack of tenitorial jurisdiction the court must take all the
facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit
without embarking upon an enquiry as to the conectness or otherwise
of the said facts. Thus the question of tetTitorial jurisdiction must be H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A decided on the facts pleaded in the petition, the truth or otherwise of
the averments made in the petition being immaterial."

It is seen from the above th~t in or_der to confer jurisdiction on a High
Court to entertain a :vrit petition' or a special civil application as in this case,
the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the
-B cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower. the court
to decide a dispute which has, at least in-part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It
is clear ~rom the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the
respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that
th'Ose facts gi"'.e rise to a cause of action within the comt' s tenito1ial jurisdiction
c unless those facts pleaded are such which have a ne:Xus ot relevance with the
lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the
dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer
tetTitorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. If we apply this principle then
we see that none of the facts pleaded in Paragraph 16 of the petition, in our .
opinion, fall into the category of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause
D of action giving rise to a dispute which could confer tenitorial jurisdiction on
the courts at Ahmedabad ..

As we have noticed earlier, the fact that the respondents are carrying on
the business of export and import or that they are receiving the export and
import orders at Ahmedabad or that their documents and payments for exports
E
and imports are senUmade at Ahmedabad, has no connection whatsoever with
the dispute that is involved in the applications. Similarly, the fact that the credit
of duty claimed in respect of exports that were made from Chennai were 4,
handled by the respondents from Alunedabad have also no connection what- '
soever with the actions of the appellants impugned in the application. The non-
F granting and denial of credit in the pass-book having an ultimate effect, if any,
on the business of the respondents at Alunedabad would not also, in our
opinion, give rise to any such cause of action to a court at Alunedabad to
adjudicate on the actions complained against tlie appellants.

Mr. A.shok Desai, however, pleaded that the respondents have executed
G a bank guarantee and a Bond at Ahmedabad which in law the r~spondents are
entitled to get cancelled through the intervention of tl1e courts at Ahmedabad.
This fact having been specifically pleaded in the application and a relief being
sought for that purpose, would definitely give rise to a part of caus:e of action
at Alunedabad, but on behalf of the appellants, it is pointed out to us that the
H subject-matter involved in the applications pertains to the denial of the benefit
U.0.1. v. ADANI EXPORTS LTD. [HEGDE, J.] 641
of the impmt-expmts scheme which ended w.e.f. 31.3.1997 while the bank A
guarantee and the Bond in question were not part of the Pass Book Scheme
which is the subject-matter of the special civil applications with which we are
concerned now. Execution of the bank guarantee was not with reference to the
~
demand of the respondents to give it due credit in the pass book but the same
was executed much later than 31.3 .1997 in regard to certain disputes pending
B
with the custmns authorities in regard to the valuations made by the said
authorities as to the value of the export and import of prawn and its inputs.
It was also pointed out that these customs authorities, as a matter of fact, are
not even parties to these special civil applications. Thus, it is contended that
-I the factum of the respondents having executed a bank guarantee and a Bond
at Ahmedabad will have no direct nexus or bearing on the disputes involved c
in these applications. It is pointed out to us by learned counsel for the appellants
that in regard to the conectness of the valuation, separate proceedings have
been initiated and against the findings in those proceedings, sepa_rate appeals
are pending in this Court, therefore, the bank guarantee and the Bond executed
by the respondents, as a matter of fact, have nothing to do with the cause of
D
action that may arise to challenge the denial of the benefit of the Pass Book
Scheme. Inclusion of this totally extraneous claim in the present writ petition
cannot be construed as being a factor giving rise to a cause of action. In the
case of ONGC (supra), this Court negatived the contentions advanced on behalf
of the respondents therein that either the acquisition of knowledge made through
media at a particular place or owning and having an office or property or E
residing at a particular place, receiving of a fax message at a particular place,
~ receiving telephone calls and maintaining statements of accounts of business,
~ printing of letterheads indicating branch offices of the firm, booking of orders
from a particular place are not the factors which would give rise to either
wholly or in part cause of action confening tenitoriaJ jurisdiction to courts. In F
the said case, this Court also held that the mere service of notice is also not
a fact giving rise to a cause of action unless such notice is an integral part of
the cause of action.

•. Mr. Desai, however, placed reliance on a recent judgment of this Court
G
.,
in Navinchandra v. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein this Court had held
t
that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the
Bombay High Court. It is to be noted that in the said petition, among other
reliefs, the writ petitioner had prayed for a writ of mandamus to the State of
Meghalaya to transfer the investigation to Mumbai Police as also allegations
of mala ft.des were made as to the filing of the complaint at Shillong. It was
H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A also averred in that case that the petitioner was primarily agg1ieved by the
criminal complaint filed at Meghalaya because the bulk of the investigation
was canied on at Bombay. 111e said writ petition was dismissed by the Bombay
High Court solely on the ground that since the complaint in question was filed
in Shillong in the State of Meghalaya and the petitioner had sought for quash-
ing of the said complaint, such a writ petition was not maintainable before the "
B High Court of Bombay. According to this Court, that finding was given without
taking into consideration the other altemative prayers in the writ petition to
which.we have made reference hereinabove, which prayers according to this
Cciurt, gave rise to a·cause of action to move the High Courtat Bombay for
relief. Therefore, in our opinion, this judgment does not help the writ petitioner I-
c to justify its action in filing a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court. "fl1at
apart, we must notice that the said judgment is delivered in a matter involving
criminal dispute and consequences of such dispute have a direct bearing on the
personal freedom of a citizen guaranteed under Article 2l of the Constitution~
Therefore, the consideration that arises in deciding the question of tenitorial
jurisdiction iri cases involving criminal offences may not always apply to cases
D
involving cl.vii disputes like the special civil applications with. which we are
concerned. Mr. Desai then urged that since the High Comt has elaborately dealt
with the merits of the case and given a finding in favour of the respondents
· in the interest of justice, we should not interfere with the said finding and
uphold the same. We are not inclined to accept this argument of the learned
E counsel because the appellants herein had taken objection to the entertainment
of the special civil applications by the Gujarat High Court on the ground oflack
\
of teITitorial jurisdiction in the fitst instance itself and the same was rejected,
according to us, wholly on unsustainable grounds. As a matter of fact, the
appellant on the entertainment of the civil application and grant of inte1im
"' ...
(

F order, had challenged the said order on the ground of want of jurisdiction by
way of a civil appeal in this Court which appeal is pending consideration by
this Court, therefore, the objection having been taken at the first instance itself
and the comt having not proceeded to decide this question of tenitorial juris-
diction as contemplated under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, we think we cannot
deny relief to the appellant solely on the gromid that the High Court has chosen
G to proceed to decide the case on me1it. This being a judgment of a court having ~
no tenitorial jurisdiction, the judgment has to be set aside. However, the special
civil applications cannot be dismissed on this ground because it has been the
contention of the appellants themselves in the objections filed by them before
the High Comt, that these applications ought to be transfeITed to the High Comt
H at Chennai, in the interest of justice, we agree with this plea.
U.0.1. v. ADANI EXPORTS LTD. [HEGDE, J.] 643
For the reasons stated above, these appeals succeed and the same are A
hereby allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. We further direct that
Special Civil Application Nos. 3282/99 and 3279/99 filed by the respondents
are hereby directed to be transferred to the High Court of Madras at Chennai
forthwith and on receipt of the papers, we request the Chief Justice of the High
Court of Madras to place them before an appropriate Bench for disposal in
B
accordance with law. We are also of the opinion that since the parties have
already undergone one round of litigation before the High Cowt at Ahmedabad
and thereafter in these appeals before us, it is appropriate to request the High
Court to dispose of these appeals as early as possible. The appeals are, accord-~
ingly, allowed. ·
c
A.K.T. Appeals allowed.