DELHI HIGH COURT while deciding the W.P.(C) No.1210/2003 on 20.2.2010 in re: BRIG. V.K. ANAND vs UNION OF INDIA observed as follows:

QUOTE: When the two judges decided the writ petition under Article 226, which is in the nature of original proceedings, differed on a question of fact or law, reference to a third judge as contemplated is required to be made for disposal of the matter as per the majority opinion of the three judges/ [SEE RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs PRAVEENBHAI JASBHAI PATEL AIR 1997 SC 3892] . The issue referred to the third judge is whehe the petitioner’s trial by GCM was time-barred or not.  While deciding this issue the line of reasoning which may be adopted by the third judge may not be the same as adoped by either of the learned judges who made the reference. But that cannot be a reason for making a reference to a Full Bench. We are afraid such a course is not permissible under the Rules. We, therefore, remit the mater back to the learned single judge with a request to decide the refrence expeditiously. UNQIOTE

[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com  and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_del_wpc_1210]

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS Article 226, REFERENCE TO THIRD MEMBER

The High Court of Delhi, while deciding on 01/05/2009, the CEAC No. 10 of 2008 and CM Mos. 13457-58 and 14416 of 2008, in re: BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. Vs CCEX MEERUT, observed as follows : -

QUOTE : On a reading of Article 226 (1) of the Constitution, it will be palpably clear that without the next following provision, that is., sub-clause (2) a High Court may not have been empowered to issue a writ or order against a party which is not located within the ordinary territorial limits of that High Court. The power to issue writs against any person or Authority or Government even beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any High Court is no longer debatable. The rider or perquisite to the exercise of such power is that the cause of action must meaningfully arise within the territories of that particular High Court. It does not logically follow, however, that if a part of the cause of action arises within the territories over which the High Court holds sway, it must exercise that power rather than directing the petitioner to seek his remedy in any other High Court which is better suited to exercise jurisdiction for the reason that the predominant, substantial or significant part of the cause of action arises in that Court. In other words, any High Court is justified in exercising powers under Article 226 either if the person, Authority or Government is located within its territories or if the significant part of the cause of action has arisen within its territories. The rationale of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure would, therefore, also apply to Article 226 (2) of the Constitution. These considerations are aptly encapsulated in the term forum conveniens which refers to the situs where the legal action be most appropriately brought, considering the best interests of the parties and the public (see BLACK’s LAW DICTIONARY). The writ Court should invariably satisfy itself that its choosing is not mala fide or an example of forum shopping. UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com  and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_del_ceac_10]

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

 VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS Article 226, BLACK’s LAW DICTIONARY, Code of Civil Procedure, Constitution, encapsulated, forum conveniens, mala fide, order, predominant, rationale, significant, situs, substantial, territorial limits, writ