Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRASANT GLASS WORKS PVT. LTD. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE versus UNION OF INDIA THRU' SECY. FINANCE, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Prasant Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Estate v. Union Of India Thru' Secy. Finance, New Delhi And Others - WRIT - C No. 71661 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6166 (22 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Goswami for the respondent.

This petition can be divided into two distinct parts with regard to the real reliefs which the petitioner is seeking.

         The first relief, which the petitioner is seeking by a circuitous method is that the respondent-companies are retaining the share certificates and are not issuing fresh scrips to the petitioner upon reduction in the value of the shares. The relief sought is to direct the Companies to issue/deliver the scrips to the petitioner.  It is well settled that no writ lies against the private company unless it can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or unless it is involved in some public duty or statutory duty. Therefore, for this relief we decline to entertain the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy either before the Consumer Forum or under the Companies Act.

The second part of the writ petition is that, despite a complaint to SEBI, no action has been taken by SEBI. For this the only relevant facts constituting the cause of action are (i) the receipt by SEBI of the complaint, and (ii) non-action on the same by SEBI. Thus, the entire cause of action for this relief arose at Mumbai and the writ petition for seeking a mandamus against SEBI should be filed in the Bombay High Court and not in the Allahabad High Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that because he sent the complaint from Varanasi therefore part of the cause of action arose in U.P. This is, to our mind, is not acceptable. If the petitioner had asked a friend to post the complaint from Kolkatta, he cannot, by such action, create a territorial jurisdiction in the Calcutta High Court.

In the circumstances, for want of territorial jurisdiction, we dismiss this writ petition in respect of this second relief.

Dated : 22.11.2005.

PG.

Writ No. 71661-05.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.