Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bhajan S/o Jagu Malkam and Patiram S/o Zigu Hichami, residents of Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 352/2020 before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur. They sought to challenge proceedings before a Metropolitan Magistrate in Kolkata, initiated by respondent No. 2, L & T Finance Ltd., under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the writ was directed against a court in Kolkata, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The petitioners, represented by Shri D.H. Sharma, contended that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was settled by the Supreme Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 640. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri A.S. Fulzele, agreed that the court should decide the objection based on the parameters set out in that case. The court examined Article 226(2) of the Constitution, which was inserted by the 15th Amendment, and noted that the Supreme Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia held that a High Court can exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial limits, regardless of where the authority is seated. The court found that the petitioners reside in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, and the loan agreement was executed there, giving rise to a part of the cause of action within the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the court overruled the objection and held the petition maintainable. The court then proceeded to hear the matter on merits and allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings before the Kolkata Magistrate. The decision was rendered by a division bench comprising Justices Sunil B. Shukre and Avinash G. Gharote on 11 March 2021.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India - Cause of Action - The High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial limits, even if the seat of the authority is outside those limits. The court relied on Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 640, to hold that the petition is maintainable as the petitioners reside in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, and the loan agreement was executed there, giving rise to part of the cause of action within the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Bombay High Court at Nagpur has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a criminal writ petition seeking to quash proceedings before a Metropolitan Magistrate in Kolkata, when the cause of action partly arises within its jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The court overruled the objection regarding maintainability and allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226
- Cause of action
- Maintainability of writ petition against court outside territorial limits
