PDF Upload-379761
PDF Upload-379761
IN
CWP-11209-2020 (O&M)
1
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-11209-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision : 04.08.2020
Vs.
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the
P-7) passed in CWP. No.24977 of 2017 ‘Gurdeep Singh & Ors vs Union of
Union of India through video conferencing. He has pointed out to this Court
that both the petitioners are residents of Mumbai and the company-
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 11-08-2020 12:54:00 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
CWP-11209-2020 (O&M)
2
further points out that the Registrar of Companies, Punjab and Chandigarh
present case and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present writ
petition.
contended that since the petitioners wish to invest in a company within the
jurisdiction of this Court, hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
(respondent no.2). The counsel for the petitioners has been unable to show
how the present writ petition was maintainable before this Court.
which it is the High Court. Article 226(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India
reads as under :
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 11-08-2020 12:54:01 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
CWP-11209-2020 (O&M)
3
empowers the High Court to entertain a writ petition if the cause of action
to file such a writ petition against the respondents of the said writ petition
has arisen wholly or in part within the territorial jurisdiction of the High
Court. In the case of ONGC vs. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711, the
“5. Clause (1) of Article 226 begins with a non obstante clause –
other purpose. Under clause (2) of Article 226 the High Court
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 11-08-2020 12:54:01 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
CWP-11209-2020 (O&M)
4
writ petition.”
In the present case the counsel for the petitioners has been
unable to show as to what part of the cause of action arose within the
writ petition as to how any part of the cause of action had arisen within the
held that :
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 11-08-2020 12:54:01 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
CWP-11209-2020 (O&M)
5
the plea that some event, however trivial and unconnected with
the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said
That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire
xxx
15. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the
High Court and direct that the writ petition will stand disposed of
not invoked the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court bona fide,
ensure that such abuse of the Court's jurisdiction does not take
way of costs.”
“We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court of Calcutta
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 11-08-2020 12:54:01 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
CWP-11209-2020 (O&M)
6
the Aligarh Court alone will have jurisdiction. The arbitrator was
deliberately moved the Calcutta High Court ignoring the fact that
that Court. It clearly shows that the litigation filed in the Calcutta
The present writ petition seems to have been filed only to gain
benefit of the interim order (Annexure P-7) passed by this Court in CWP.
No.24977 of 2017 ‘Gurdeep Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.’ and
other similar cases though the initiation of the writ proceedings before this
High Court was clearly unsustainable and an abuse of jurisdiction. The filing
of the present writ petition before this High Court was not bonafide.
NOTE:
Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 11-08-2020 12:54:01 :::