10 August 2020


Judgments

High Court of Delhi

S.N. Kathuria v. Central Bank of India

MANU/DE/3518/2016

19.12.2016

Service

To have territorial jurisdiction at Delhi, whole or part of cause of action would have to accrue at Delhi

Present writ petition impugns orders passed by Respondent/Central Bank of India/ employer whereby Petitioner has been inflicted punishment of dismissal from services which shall be a disqualification for future employment. Orders have been passed at Mumbai. Entire enquiry proceedings were also held at Mumbai even show cause notice/charge-sheet was issued to Petitioner at Mumbai.

In present case, no part of cause of action has arisen at Delhi. Merely because Petitioner has settled in Delhi after dismissal from services it does not mean that Delhi will have territorial jurisdiction to try petition. To have territorial jurisdiction at Delhi, whole or part of cause of action would have to accrue at Delhi or impugned orders which have to be set aside by issuing directions to competent authorities which are to be at Delhi but which is not so as authorities which have passed impugned orders are at Mumbai.

High Court dismissed Petition on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction and also applied doctrine of forum non-conveniens as entire record, entire evidence and all other papers with respect to enquiry proceedings against Petitioner would be at Mumbai and not at Delhi. Law is well settled with respect to writ jurisdiction being a discretionary jurisdiction and an extraordinary jurisdiction wherein the principle of forum conveniens/forum non-conveniens has to be applied in view of a Full Bench Judgment of five judges of this Court in case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) AIR 2011 Delhi 174.

Relevant

Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) AIR 2011 Delhi 174

Tags : Proceedings Jurisdiction Cause of action

Share :