Writ Petition with SEBI as one Party
Pramod Kumar
(Querist) 03 August 2009
This query is : Resolved
Dear Members,
Can anyone enlighten if I can initiate a writ petition in the High Court of any state against a public company with SEBI as the other party.
Is there any jurisdiction for initiating W.P against SEBI.
Regards,
Pramod
Advocate SK Rohilla New Delhi
(Expert) 04 August 2009
No. You can initiate proceeding in the High Court of a State where public company has principal office or where Public Company has established its office. Secondly you can initiate the action in a High Court of the state where cause of actin has arrisen.
You can make SEBI as other party if SEBI has grossly failed to discharge its statutory duties and obligations.
Manish Singh
(Expert) 10 August 2009
you can file a writ where the cause of action,may be in a part, has arisen, apart from the freedom of filing it at the registered place/business place/ head office of the state/department etc, but the cause of action must be determined basing on facts and circumstances keeping in mind the substance of the same. Please go through the following recent judgment of the Apex Court on the same subject with good explanation over it.
also, we must keep in mind that the company must be either a state or engaged in public functions to be named a party in the writ.
"Alchemist Limited and Another Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Others Decided on 16/03/2007"
Manish Singh
(Expert) 10 August 2009
The scope of territorial jurisdiction surely have been enlarged but still decisions of higher courts has laid down that while entertaining a writ by the HIGh Court, they must have due consideration over the cause of action whether in part or as a whole and that "part cause of action" must form an integral part of the cause of action.
I am afraid to state that while interpreting cause of action, the Apex Court has quite narrowed down the scope of its applicability on territorial jurisdiction under ART 226 thus restraining litigants in filing writs at their whims. Even in cases, where it seems it could have been a part cause of action for territorial jurisdicition u/ART 226, the Apex Court ruled against the said part cause of action.
Still this legality shall see several other interpretations in near future with efflux of time.
Manish Singh
(Expert) 10 August 2009
I would like to correct my above mentioned statement :
The scope of territorial jurisdiction surely have been enlarged but still decisions of higher courts has laid down that while entertaining a writ by the HIGh Court, they must have due consideration over the cause of action whether in part or as a whole and that "part cause of action" must form an integral part of the cause of action.
I am afraid to state that while interpreting cause of action, the Apex Court has quite narrowed down the scope of its applicability on territorial jurisdiction under ART 226 thus restraining litigants in filing writs at their whims. Even in cases, where it seems it could have been a part cause of action for territorial jurisdicition u/ART 226, the Apex Court ruled against the said part cause of action.
Still this legality shall see several other interpretations in near future with efflux of time.
