Arunodaya Exports Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - shri neema, learned standing counsel for the union of india submitted that the wordings of article 226, sub-clauses (i) and (ii) read together clearly indicate that the proper forum for invoking the writ jurisdiction would be high court of gujarat.orderv.d. gyani, j.1. shri chafekar, senior advocate with shri v.k. jain for the petitioner. shri e.g. neema, learned standing counsel for union of india, appears on an advance copy of the stay application having supplied to him by the petitioner.2. they are heard.3. on the point of jurisdiction of this court a question was posed to the petitioner in view of the fact that the goods in question were unloaded at kandla port. shri neema, learned standing counsel for the union of india submitted that the wordings of article 226, sub-clauses (i) and (ii) read together clearly indicate that the proper forum for invoking the writ jurisdiction would be high court of gujarat. shri chafekar, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that after the 42nd amendment even if a part of cause of action has accrued or arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, a writ can be issued which can be executed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this court, state of m.p.4. in view of the material available at present on record, a contract of supply of goods having taken place at indore it is clear that part of cause of action accrued and has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. we are, therefore, prima facie of the view that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition although, as urged by the learned standing counsel, the respondents are free to raise objection at the proper stage as regards territorial jurisdiction of this court.5. coming to la. no. 2682/93, an application for ad-interim writ which is supported by affidavit, shri neema again pointed out that the petitioner was prepared to pay rs. 11,99,310/- by way of bank draft which preparedness is even accepted by shri chafekar, learned counsel for the petitioner. on payment of this amount the goods detained by the respondents are ordered to be released immediately. if there is any difference in the duty the petitioner shall also pay the same which may ultimately arise on final analysis and assessment of the duty of the goods. the security bond as provided under the act has already been furnished by the petitioner as stated by shri chafekar.6. certified copy of this order be given to parties on payment of necessary charges.

Judgment:
ORDER

V.D. Gyani, J.

1. Shri Chafekar, Senior Advocate with Shri V.K. Jain for the petitioner. Shri E.G. Neema, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India, appears on an advance copy of the stay application having supplied to him by the petitioner.

2. They are heard.

3. On the point of jurisdiction of this court a question was posed to the petitioner in view of the fact that the goods in question were unloaded at Kandla Port. Shri Neema, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India submitted that the wordings of Article 226, sub-clauses (i) and (ii) read together clearly indicate that the proper forum for invoking the writ jurisdiction would be High Court of Gujarat. Shri Chafekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that after the 42nd amendment even if a part of cause of action has accrued or arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, a writ can be issued which can be executed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, State of M.P.

4. In view of the material available at present on record, a contract of supply of goods having taken place at Indore it is clear that part of cause of action accrued and has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. We are, therefore, prima facie of the view that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition although, as urged by the learned standing counsel, the respondents are free to raise objection at the proper stage as regards territorial jurisdiction of this court.

5. Coming to LA. No. 2682/93, an application for ad-interim writ which is supported by affidavit, Shri Neema again pointed out that the petitioner was prepared to pay Rs. 11,99,310/- by way of bank draft which preparedness is even accepted by Shri Chafekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. On payment of this amount the goods detained by the respondents are ordered to be released immediately. If there is any difference in the duty the petitioner shall also pay the same which may ultimately arise on final analysis and assessment of the duty of the goods. The security bond as provided under the Act has already been furnished by the petitioner as stated by Shri Chafekar.

6. Certified copy of this order be given to parties on payment of necessary charges.