MANU/SC/0430/2004

True Court CopyTM EnglishECR DRJ

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9159 of 2003

Decided On: 28.04.2004

Appellants:Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent:Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
V.N. Khare, C.J., S.B. Sinha and S.H. Kapadia

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

INTRODUCTION

1. Whether the seat of the Parliament or the Legislature of a State would be a relevant factor for determining the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a writ petition-under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 4609 of 2003 holding that the said Court has no jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Its registered office is at Mumbai. It obtained a loan from the Bhopal Branch of State Bank of India. The respondent No. 2 issued a notice for repayment, of the said loan from Bhopal purported to be in terms of the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

3. Questioning the vires of the said Act, the said writ petition was filed before Delhi High Court by the appellant herein which was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Submissions

4. The only submission made on behalf of the appellant before the High Court as also before us is 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.

5. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is that as no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi, the writ petition has rightly not been entertained.

Cause of Action:

6. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitutes the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily.

7. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads thus:

"(2) The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action,