G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) BY this order, we are disposing of the premilinary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain these petitions.
(2.) A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners are partners in B.R. Engineering and Company (hereinafter referred to as "the company"), which is registered at Mumbai and has its office at 102, Loha Bhavan, P.D. Mellow Road, Mumbai. In the year 1994 -95, the company exported computer software packages to A/o Bowl Indigo 11531, Moscow St. Sayanskaya 15, Russia, owned by one Shri Salil Gupta. The business premises of the company as well as residential premises of Shri Rahul Gupta, one of the partners of the company, were searched under S. 37 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short "the Act"), on 21st May, 1997, resulting in seizure of certain documents. Residential premises of Shri Ashok Gandhi and Shri Kirti Kumar, two of the persons involved in the export of software packages to Russia, were also searched under S. 37 of the Act resulting in recovery and seizure of certain documents. After considering these documents and recording the statements of S/Shri Rahul Gupta, Shekhar Gupta and Nemi Chand Shah, the Special Director, Enforcement, Delhi, issued notice dt. 1st Feb., 2000, to the company and its partners including the petitioners to show cause as to why adjudication proceedings as contemplated by S. 51 of the Act should not be held against them for contravention of the provisions of S. 9(1)(f)(i) r/w S. 64(2) of the Act. The petitioners have challenged the notices dt. 1st Feb., 2000, on various grounds set out in the writ petitions and have prayed as under : "(a) that the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the notification/clarification dt. 18th June, 1997, issued under the orders of respondent No. 1 and/or ; (b) that the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to respondent No. 3 commanding that they will intimate respondent No. 4 that the events and declarations submitted to and accepted by respondent No. 3 warrants dropping of proceedings initiated by respondent No. 4 and/ or; (c) that the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition to respondent No. 4 from proceedings with the notice dt. 1st Feb., 2000, and acting upon the notification/clarification dt. 18th June, 1997, issued by the CBDT as indicated in their letter dt. 24th Aug., 1998 ; and/or (d) that the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order as the High Court may deem fit on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and/or ; (e) that the High Court may be pleased to order that the proceedings initiated in terms of the notice dt. 1st Feb., 2000, issued by respondent No. 4 be stayed forthwith." In the written statements filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4, a common objection has been raised to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petitions on the ground that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.) SHRI R. P. Sawhney, senior counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri D. D. Sharma, counsel for respondent No. 4, argued that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions and the cause of action, if any, in the context of the prayers made by the petitioners has arisen only within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts of Mumbai and Delhi. Learned counsel pointed out that the company is not only registered at Mumbai and having its office at Mumbai, but the entire transaction leading to the initiation of proceedings under the Act had taken place at Mumbai. They further pointed out that the search and seizure operations were carried out at Mumbai, the notification/clarification impugned in the writ petitions was issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes at New Delhi (for short, "the CBDT"), and the proceedings qua which a writ of prohibition has been sought are pending before respondent No. 4 at Delhi and argued that this Court cannot entertain the petitions because neither the cause of action nor a part of it has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel further argued that mere service of notices issued by respondent No. 4 cannot be treated as a part of cause of action so as to entitle the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.;