NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2009 passed by the hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7569 of 2007. Claims had been raised by respondent No. 3 under certain fire policies obtained by respondent No. 3 from the appellant. This claim was, however, repudiated by the appellant. Consequently, respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against the repudiation of its claims before the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'IRDA'), respondent No. 2 herein. The IRDA passed an order on 2nd June, 2003, against which the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority constituted by the Central Government, Ministry of Finance (respondent No. 1 herein). The Appellate Authority passed its order on 20th June, 2007.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20th June, 2007, the appellant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7569 of 2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking inter alia that the orders dated 5th March, 2004 and 20th June, 2007 passed by the Appellate Authority be set aside. The Appellate Authority is constituted under Section 110H of the Insurance Act, 1938 and has its seat at Financial Sector Division, Jeev Deep Building, 3rd Floor, Parliament Street, New Delhi.

(3.) The learned Single Judge relying on various judgments including Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2007 (6) SCC 769, Bombay Snuff P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 125 (2005) DLT 605 (DB), Rajkumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director of Enforcement, Mumbai 154 (2008) DLT 28 (DB) and West Coast Ingots (P) Lts. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 2007 (209) ELT 343 Delhi, held that going by the strict provisions of Clause(1) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition, however, the basic issue was whether this Court really was the most appropriate Forum to decide the present petition considering that the significant part of the cause of action imperative for the effective settlement of disputes has not arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. As per the learned Single Judge, a significant part of the cause of action could not be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court merely because the order under challenge had been passed by a Tribunal or Authority located within its territorial jurisdiction when the events leading to the filing of the proceedings before such Tribunal or Authority and the parties to such proceedings are located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Single Judge went on to observe that this was the precise situation in the present case and also held that any stand taken by this Court to the contrary would lie in the teeth of the consistent and settled approach adopted by the courts of this country in Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) Bombay Snuff P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), Rajkumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director of Enforcement (supra) and West Coast Ingots (P) Lts. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi (supra). The learned Single Judge in view of the same declined to entertain the writ petition.