Union Of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 31 October, 2001 Cites 7 docs - [View All] Navinchandra N. Majithia vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 unknown_month, 2000 The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1956 Union Of India And Others vs Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. And ... on 27 March, 1984 Article 226(2) in The Constitution Of India 1949 Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949 Citedby 109 docs - [View All] Kamlesh Ishwarbhai Patel vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 September, 2007 Jai Ganesh Petroleum vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. ... on 23 December, 2005 National Capital Power Station ... vs Bank Of Baroda And Ors. on 25 April, 2003 Ex. Rect./Gd Vinod Kumar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. ... on 16 November, 2006 Kanhaiyalal Agarwal And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 February, 2002
Supreme Court of India
Bench: N S Hegde, A Bhan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6320-6321 of 2000 PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: ADANI EXPORTS LTD. & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/10/2001 BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde & Ashok Bhan JUDGMENT: (With C.A.No. 6319/2000) JUDGMENT SANTOSH HEGDE, J. These civil appeals are preferred by the Union of India and Others challenging the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad made in Special Civil Application Nos.3282/99 and 3279/99 wherein the High Court allowed the said civil applications and granted the relief as prayed for by the petitioner therein.
1 of 9
6/17/2010 12:50 AM
Union Of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 31 October, 2001
Though in these appeals, principal contention involved pertains to the entitlement of the respondents herein to the benefit of the Pass Book Scheme found in paragraph 54 of the Import Export Policy introduced by the appellants herein w.e.f. 1st April, 1995 in relation to certain credits to be given on export of Shrimps, the appellant firstly challenges before us the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad to entertain the civil applications and grant relief in favour of the respondents. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General of India and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the High Court at Ahmedabad did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the special civil applications since no part of the cause of action based on which the applications were filed arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Ahmedabad. They contended that though this ground was specifically urged, the High Court wrongly placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. & Ors. (1984 (2) SCC 646) rejected the said objection of the appellants and granted the relief which, of course, the appellants contend even on merits is not liable to be granted. They contend that since the question of jurisdiction in this case goes to the root of the matter, this issue should be first decided and if it is held in favour of the appellants, then ipso facto the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside as having been delivered by a court of no jurisdiction. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that it is incorrect to say that no part to the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Ahmedabad. According to the learned counsel, a substantial part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Ahmedabad, hence, the judgment in question cannot be invalidated on this preliminary ground. He placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Navinchandra N.Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2000 (7) SCC 640). Having considered the arguments...