VlKRAMAJIT SEN, J. - (1.) The Petitioner's plans to construct a Hotel on its private land situated opposite the International Airport in St. Thomas Mount-cum-Pailavaram Cantonment, Chennai has received a set-back. Vide orders dated 15.6.1984, the GOC-in-C, Southern Command had imposed Floor Space Index (FSI) restrictions which may render the Hotel project non-viable. The contention of the Petitioner is that the power to determine the FSI is reposed in the Cantonment Board and not the GOC-in-C, Southern Command, and further that the FSI fixed by the said Officer is insufficient for the proposed five-star hotel and in variance with what has been allowed to other similarly placed Companies. The next contention of the Petitioner is that the FSI has already been relaxed for two other companies but declined for the Petitioner. The Petitioner had initiated appropriate legal proceedings in the Madras High Court in the course of which directions were issued to the Central Government to dispose of Petitioner's application expeditiously. The application has been rejected. The Petitioner's asseveration is that there is no deficiency in the availability of either water or electricity supply and, therefore, more favourable FSI, as allowed to other persons, should have been granted to the Petitioner also.
(2.) The Petition has been resisted by the Respondents firstly on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, and on merits also. So far as the quertion of territorial jurisdiction is concerned this Court had the occasion to reflect upon the question of exercise of the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts in Indo Gulf Industries Ltd. Vs. U.P. State Industries Development Corpn., 2003 (III) AD (D) 254 : 2003 104 DLT 529. The Opinion of the Supreme Court in O.N.G.C. Vs. Utpal Kumar Basi, JT 1994 (5) SC 1, Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia Vs. Girdharlal Parshottamadas and Co., AIR 1966 SC 543 and ABC Laminart Vs. A.P. Agencies, AIR 1989 SC 1239 :1989 (2) SCC 163 had been applied. The view of the Division Bench in Sector Twenty One Owners Welfare Association Vs. Air Force Naval Housing Board, 65 (1997) DLT 81 (DB) had also been considered. The following passage from ABC Laminart Vs. A.P Agencies, AIR 1989 SC 1239 = 1989 (2 SCC 163 is extremely instructive - 15. In the matter of a contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract, and of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occurred. The making of the contract is part of the cause of action. A suit on a contract, therefore, can be filed at the place where it was made. The determination of the place where the contract was made is part of the law of contract But making of an offer on a particular place does not form cause of action in a suit for damages for breach of contract. Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated. The performance of a contract Is part of cause of action and a suit in respect of the breach can always be filed at the place where the contract should have (been) performed or its performance completed. If the contract is to be performed at the place where it is made, the suit on the contract is to be filed there and nowhere else. In suits for agency actions the cause of action arises at the place where the contract of agency was made or the place where actions are to be rendered and payment is to be made by the agent. Part of cause of action arises where money is expressly or impliedly payable under a contract. In cases of repudiation of a contract, the place where repudiation is received is the place where the suit would lie. If a contract is pleaded as part of the cause of action giving jurisdiction to the Court where the suit is filed and that contract is found to be invalid, such part of cause of the action disappears. The above are some of the connecting factors. No doubt these legal reflections were in the context of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but that should make no appreciable difference. A reading of these decisions will show that even in respect of writ petitions the place where the cause of action arises in the principal and most prominent and relevant manner would determine which High Court should exercise territorial jurisdiction.
(3.) This question has been considered in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Adani Exports Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 126. In its opinion, "each and every fact pleaded in the application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned".;