Circular Issued In Delhi Does Not Confer Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea On Goods Seized By Customs In Kolkata

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a steel importer challenging the detention of its goods, holding that the mere issuance of a circular or decision by an authority located in Delhi does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was dealing with a plea filed by a company engaged in the import of steel products, whose consignments had been detained at ports in Kolkata and Chennai due to rejection of a No Objection Certificate (NOC).

The petitioner had approached the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of a circular issued by the Union of India, setting aside of NOC rejections, and directions for release of the detained goods.

It was argued that since both the circular and the decision rejecting the NOC were issued from Delhi, part of the cause of action arose within the Court's territorial jurisdiction.

Rejecting this contention, the Court held, “the mere fact that the circular under challenge was issued at Delhi will not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain a petition in relation to the petitioner and the actions of the respondents no. 3 (Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Port)) and 4 (Chief Commissioner Of Customs) in detaining the goods at Chennai and Kolkata.”

Reliance was placed on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) and State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2023), where the Supreme Court held that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within a jurisdiction, it must constitute a material or integral part of the dispute.

“Situs of office of Parliament, legislature of a State or authorities empowered to make subordinate legislation would not by itself constitute any cause of action or cases arising,” it had said.

As such, finding that no integral cause of action arose within Delhi, the Court held that the petition was not maintainable and dismissed it on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

For Petitioner: Advocates Shashi Mathews, Abhishek Boob, Sunidhi, Lopamudra Mahapatra

For Respondent: Siddhartha Shankar Ray, CGSC with Debashish Mishra (GP), Advocates Virugayala Rakesh Reddy, Sonali Modi, Mukul Dev, Advocates for Respondents no. 1 and 6/Union of India Dr. Subhash C. Gupta, Advocate for Respondent no. 2/BIS Mr. Akash Verma, Standing Counsel for CBIC, Teevra Mishra, Aanchal Uppal for Respondent no. 3