Full Text
Translation output
$-4 & 53 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 659/2015 & CM 1149/2015 & CM 5066/2015
W.P.(C) 659/2015 & CM 1149/2015 & CM 5066/2015
W.P.(C) 2759/2015 & CM 4942/2015
DINESH ANEJA Petitioner
Through : Mr Abhinav Bajaj
DINESH ANEJA Petitioner
Through : Mr Abhinav Bajaj
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents
Through : Mr Jasmeet Singh for R-I & 4.
Ms Sonia Sharma for R-2 & 3.
Through : Mr Jasmeet Singh for R-I & 4.
Ms Sonia Sharma for R-2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
20.03.2015 In these petitions, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the orders passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) of different dates are the subject matter of challenge.
The Adjudicating Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are both located in Gujarat. In our view, the entire cause of action has arisen, if at all, within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Gujarat. As such, this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions.
The decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Sterlins Asro Industries Limited
V. Union ofIndia and Others : 181 (2011) DLT 658 does not come to the aid of the petitioner as the plea offorum conveniens orforum non-conveniens (as it is properly known) could only be raised by the petitioner if this Court had jurisdiction. Since we
2015:DHC:11288-DB have found that this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction in these matters, the said plea v/ould not arise.
The writ petitions are dismissed for want ofterritorial jurisdiction.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J r ., ^JE MARCH 20, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR
2015:DHC:11288-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
20.03.2015 In these petitions, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the orders passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) of different dates are the subject matter of challenge.
The Adjudicating Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are both located in Gujarat. In our view, the entire cause of action has arisen, if at all, within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Gujarat. As such, this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions.
The decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Sterlins Asro Industries Limited
V. Union ofIndia and Others : 181 (2011) DLT 658 does not come to the aid of the petitioner as the plea offorum conveniens orforum non-conveniens (as it is properly known) could only be raised by the petitioner if this Court had jurisdiction. Since we
2015:DHC:11288-DB have found that this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction in these matters, the said plea v/ould not arise.
The writ petitions are dismissed for want ofterritorial jurisdiction.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J r ., ^JE MARCH 20, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR
2015:DHC:11288-DB
JUDGMENT