Can the supervisory jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution extend to tribunals beyond its territorial limits?.The Supreme Court will determine this very question, after a Bench of Justices AK Goel, Rohinton Nariman and UU Lalit issued notice last week in an appeal against an interlocutory order passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)..The issue stems from a dispute between Asianet Satellite Communication Limited and Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Limited in the TDSAT located in Delhi..During the proceedings of this matter, the TDSAT Bench headed by former Supreme Court judge, Justice Shiva Kirti Singh had passed an order in October 2017, disallowing Jeevan TV (petitioners before the Supreme Court) from filing an additional written statement/reply in the matter..It is the case of the petitioner company that the earlier written statement was filed after obtaining wrong instruction from one of the employees of the petitioner company. Subsequently, it was learnt that the employee had committed fraud, and that upon his instructions, several wrong admissions and contentions were raised in the written statement..On this basis, the TDSAT order was challenged by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court under Article 227. It was submitted that since that TDSAT order was an interlocutory order, appeal to the Supreme Court was not maintainable, and therefore, the High Court’s interference was sought..However, the Single Judge Bench of the High Court decided that the petition was not maintainable, as the High Court exercises jurisdiction only over tribunals and courts situated within its territorial limits. Further, since the seat of the TDSAT is at Delhi, only the Delhi High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over it..The petitioner company then sought to approach the Supreme Court, which will now determine the pertinent question as regards the scope of Article 227. The plea was filed by advocate Lakshmi Kaimal and argued by advocate Renjith Marar, while Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan appeared for the respondents..It culls out the following questions of law for the Court to determine:.Whether the High Court of Kerala erred in law while holding that the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution over the TDSAT?Whether the seat of the tribunal is determinative of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution?Whether the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution depends on the cause of action?Whether the doctrine of forum conveniens is applicable under Article 227 of the Constitution?.The petition further contends,.“Merely because the Tribunal is seated in Delhi, the same does not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court as the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Kerala.”.The Bench proceeded to issue notice in the matter, and will now adjudicate solely upon the question of whether the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts extends beyond territorial limits..While doing so, the Bench made a prima facie observation that the Kerala High Court’s reasoning may not be correct, in view of the fact that the Delhi High Court will be overburdened, as it would have to hear petitions where the cause of action has arisen at different parts of the country..The matter has been listed for hearing in the month of July..Read the Supreme Court order:.Read the petition filed in the Supreme Court:
Can the supervisory jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution extend to tribunals beyond its territorial limits?.The Supreme Court will determine this very question, after a Bench of Justices AK Goel, Rohinton Nariman and UU Lalit issued notice last week in an appeal against an interlocutory order passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)..The issue stems from a dispute between Asianet Satellite Communication Limited and Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Limited in the TDSAT located in Delhi..During the proceedings of this matter, the TDSAT Bench headed by former Supreme Court judge, Justice Shiva Kirti Singh had passed an order in October 2017, disallowing Jeevan TV (petitioners before the Supreme Court) from filing an additional written statement/reply in the matter..It is the case of the petitioner company that the earlier written statement was filed after obtaining wrong instruction from one of the employees of the petitioner company. Subsequently, it was learnt that the employee had committed fraud, and that upon his instructions, several wrong admissions and contentions were raised in the written statement..On this basis, the TDSAT order was challenged by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court under Article 227. It was submitted that since that TDSAT order was an interlocutory order, appeal to the Supreme Court was not maintainable, and therefore, the High Court’s interference was sought..However, the Single Judge Bench of the High Court decided that the petition was not maintainable, as the High Court exercises jurisdiction only over tribunals and courts situated within its territorial limits. Further, since the seat of the TDSAT is at Delhi, only the Delhi High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over it..The petitioner company then sought to approach the Supreme Court, which will now determine the pertinent question as regards the scope of Article 227. The plea was filed by advocate Lakshmi Kaimal and argued by advocate Renjith Marar, while Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan appeared for the respondents..It culls out the following questions of law for the Court to determine:.Whether the High Court of Kerala erred in law while holding that the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution over the TDSAT?Whether the seat of the tribunal is determinative of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution?Whether the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution depends on the cause of action?Whether the doctrine of forum conveniens is applicable under Article 227 of the Constitution?.The petition further contends,.“Merely because the Tribunal is seated in Delhi, the same does not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court as the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Kerala.”.The Bench proceeded to issue notice in the matter, and will now adjudicate solely upon the question of whether the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts extends beyond territorial limits..While doing so, the Bench made a prima facie observation that the Kerala High Court’s reasoning may not be correct, in view of the fact that the Delhi High Court will be overburdened, as it would have to hear petitions where the cause of action has arisen at different parts of the country..The matter has been listed for hearing in the month of July..Read the Supreme Court order:.Read the petition filed in the Supreme Court:
