NAVINCHANDRA N. MAJITHIA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

NAVINCHANDRA N. MAJITHIA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Since part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai—the site of the agreement, transactions, and delivery of shares—the Bombay High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, investigation of the complaint registered in Shillong should be transferred to the Mumbai Police for further investigation.

Parties
Appellant/petitioner: Navinchandra N. Majithia; Respondent(s): State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Order Dismissing Writ Petition for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Article 226 – Territorial Jurisdiction, Quashing of Fir/complaint, Transfer of Investigation, Cause of Action
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Article 226 – Territorial Jurisdiction Quashing of Fir/complaint Transfer of Investigation Cause of Action

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Navinchandra N. Majithia

Appellant/petitioner

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Respondent(s)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Order Dismissing Writ Petition for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bombay High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition seeking quashing of a complaint registered in another State or transfer of investigation.
  2. 2 Whether part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court such that it could entertain the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi

Since part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai—the site of the agreement, transactions, and delivery of shares—the Bombay High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, investigation of the complaint registered in Shillong should be transferred to the Mumbai Police for further investigation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The complaint lodged by the respondent at Shillong, currently investigated by the Special Superintendent of Police, CID, Shillong, shall be transferred to the Mumbai Police for further investigation through its Economic Offences Wing, General Branch, CID, or any other branch as the competent authority of the Mumbai...