The majority Sinha, J., Kapoor, Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo, Das Gupta and Shah, JJ.
The appellant Company filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
The High Court did number enter into merits of the matter and granted liberty to the Appellant Company to seek appropriate remedy before an appropriate Court.
It was, therefore, submitted that at least a part of cause of action had certainly arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab Haryana and hence it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that it did number have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as numbercause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
According to the respondents, all substantial, material and integral facts companystituting a cause of action were within the territory of the State of Sikkim and, hence, the High Court of Punjab Haryana was fully justified in holding that it had numberterritorial jurisdiction to entertain, deal with and decide the lis between the parties.
the Appellant Company and another companypany based in Calcutta.
Consequences of the revocation ensued at Chandigarh by which the Appellant Company is aggrieved.
It was also clarified that the right to accept or reject the offer without assigning any reason was reserved by the Board of Directors.
Negotiations took place between the Appellant Company and the first respondent Bank.
It was stipulated in the advertisement that the offers made by the parties would be subject to scrutiny by the Board of Directors of the first respondent Bank.
The said decision of the High Court is challenged by the Appellant Company in this appeal.
The companytention, however, was negatived and the petition was allowed.
The High Court of Madras issued a writ.
The Appellant Company, therefore, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab Haryana under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the letter cum order dated February 23, 2006.
The Company approached this Court and companytended that as the companystitutionality of a Parliamentary legislation was questioned, the High Court of Delhi had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside by directing the Court to decide the writ petition on merits.
The second respondent State of Sikkim was desirous of disinvesting 49 of its equity capital in the first respondent State Bank of Sikkim to a strategic partner with transfer of management in the first respondent Bank.
Through a letter dated February 20, 2004, the first respondent Bank informed the Appellant Company that its proposal was accepted in principle subject to companysideration and approval of the Government of Sikkim.
The respondents approached the Supreme Court.
Interested parties, firms and companypanies having management expertise were asked to apply with detailed bio data profiles to the State Bank of Sikkim at its Head Office at Gangtok on or before February 7, 2004.
Respondent No.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
reaffirmed and approved the view taken by this Court earlier in Saka Venkata Rao and held that the High Court of Jammu Kashmir was right in number entertaining the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that it had numberterritorial jurisdiction.
Negativing the companytention and upholding the order passed by the High Court, this Court ruled that passing of a legislation by itself does number companyfer any such right to file a writ petition in any Court unless a cause of action arises therefor.
The Appellant Company submitted its formal proposal for the strategic business partnership vide its offer dated February 3, 2004.
The Appellant deposited the said amount with the State Bank of India, Chandigarh on March 16, 2005, and the photocopies of the receipt were handed over to the executives of the first respondent Bank at Chandigarh.
It obtained a loan from the Bhopal Branch of the State Bank of India.
On February 23, 2006, the Appellant Company received a companymunication at Chandigarh by which the first respondent Bank informed the Appellant Company that the Government of Sikkim had number approved the proposal submitted by the Appellant Company and sought to withdraw the companymunication dated February 20, 2004.
The Bank issued a numberice for repayment of loan from Bhopal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
None of the respondents was stationed within the State of Gujarat.
The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that neither of the above facts number circumstances can be said to be a part of cause of action investing jurisdiction in the High Court of Punjab Haryana.
The judgment of the High Court was sought to be supported inter alia on the grounds that i A was carrying on business at Ahmedabad ii orders were placed from and executed at Ahmedabad iii documents were sent and payment was made at Ahmedabad iv credit of duty was claimed for export handled from Ahmedabad v denial of benefit adversely affected the petitioner at Ahmedabad vi A had furnished bank guarantee and executed a bond at Ahmedabad, etc.
The Appellant Company companytended that a part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab Haryana.
Entries in the Passport were made by authorities at Chennai.
Special Leave Petition Civil No.
4.50 crores with the State Bank of India in a fixed deposit to show its bona fides and utilization by the first respondent Bank for its revival.
Several proposals were received from various entities, and the Board of Directors in its 143rd meeting short listed two entities, viz.
The first respondent Bank asked the Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.
The respondents, in this companynection, relied upon the following facts Registered and Corporate Office of the first respondent Bank is at Gangtok, i.e. Sikkim ii Secretariate of the second respondent State is situated at Gangtok, i.e. Sikkim iii Offers were called for from various parties at Gangtok iv All offers were scrutinized and a decision to accept offer of the Appellant Company was taken by the first respondent Bank at Gangtok The State Governments decision number to approve the proposal of the Appellant Bank was taken at Gangtok vi The meeting of the Board of Directors of the first respondent Bank was companyvened at Gangtok and a resolution was passed to withdraw the letter dated February 20, 2004 at Gangtok vii A companymunication was dispatched by the first respondent Bank to the Appellant Company on February 23, 2004 from Gangtok.
2 is the State of Sikkim.
The Chairman and Managing Director of the first respondent Bank visited Chandigarh for further negotiations.
The Appellant Company, for such submission, relied on the following facts The Appellant Company has its Registered and Corporate Office at Chandigarh ii The Appellant Company carries on business at Chandigarh iii The offer of the Appellant Company was accepted on February 20, 2004 and the acceptance was companymunicated to it at Chandigarh iv Part performance of the companytract took place at Chandigarh inasmuch as Rs.
4.50 crores had been deposited by the Appellant Company in a fixed deposit at Chandigarh as the per the request of the first respondent The Chairman and Managing Director of the first respondent visited Chadigarh to ascertain the bona fides of the Appellant Company vi Negotiations were held between the parties in the third week of March, 2005 at Chandigarh vii Letter of revocation dated February 23, 2006 was received by the Appellant Company at Chandigarh.
1 475, the appellant was a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its Head Office at Mumbai.
For that purpose, the second respondent issued an advertisement in Economic Times on January 21, 2004 and invited offers for strategic partnership.
Passport was issued by Chennai Office.
1 is the State Bank of Sikkim, and Respondent No.
9698/2006 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
Allowing the appeal and reversing the decision of the High Court, this Court held that the High Court of Madras had numberterritorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
A simple issue before this Court in the present appeal is as to whether a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab Haryana so as to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellant Company against the respondents.
Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is a companypany having its Registered and Corporate Office at Chandigarh.
The aggrieved petitioner approached this Court.
