# M/s. Dynamic Education Systems (International) Limited & anr v. Bank of Baroda & others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1185
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-08-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.37158 of 2012
- **Bench:** Dilip Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-dynamic-education-systems-international-limited-anr-v-bank-of-baroda-others-42369
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Doctrine
of
''forum
conveniens"
explained-company
located
in
M.P.-
direction of company residing in M.P.-
Bank who advanced loan situated in
M.P.-property auctioned and saled in
M.P.-held-most appropriate forum for all
parties would be state of M.P.-court
declined to exercise discretionary powerpetition dismissed by evoking Doctrine of
''forum conveniens".

Held: Para 23

It is in this context that the doctrine of
''forum conveniens' has to be examined
and having so examined it and in view of
the decisions rendered by the Supreme
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Court and the Delhi High Court referred
to above, there is no manner of doubt
that the more appropriate forum for all
the parties to agitate the matter would
be the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Case law discussed:
(2007) 6 SCC 769; AIR 2011 DELHI 174;
(2004) 6 SCC 254; AIR 1976 SC 331; AIR 2010
Delhi 43

## Text

3 All] M/s. Dynamic Education Systems (International) Limited & anr V. Bank of Baroda & others 1185
of the petitioner. We find that the reasons
assigned by learned Single Judge are
absolutely legal and justified and no
interference in the same is called for.

17.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant
also
submitted
that
the
notification was earlier issued for land to
be acquired for Chomu, Mujamabad and
Phulera but another or the second
notification was issued only in respect of
Chomu and Mujamabad and not for
Phulera. The petitioner is aggrieved only
in respect of land situated in Phulera
and since there is no second notification
for Phulera, therefore, proceedings are
vitiated. We do not find any substance in
the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant in this regard. There is no bar
in issuing another or second notification.
He
is
required
to
challenge
the
notification on the basis of relevant
provisions of law. He has not pointed out
any
illegality
in
issuance
of
the
notification. Therefore, we find no force
in his this submission also. "

25. The submission of of learned
Advocate General thus finds full support
from the aforesaid decisions of the
Gujarat High Court and Rajasthan High
Court.

26.

In
view
of
foregoing
discussions. we are of the view that
declaration issued under Section 20E(1)
of
the
Railways
Act,
dated
15th
February, 2010 published in the gazette
on 18th February, 2010 was well within
one year from the date of publication of
substance of notification i.e. 6th March,
2009. Thus the prayer of the petitioner
for quashing the entire acquisition
proceeding on the aforesaid ground
cannot be accepted.

27. In view of the above, we do not
find any error in the declaration dated
15th February, 2010 under Section
20E(1) gazetted on 18th February, 2010
and none of the prayer of the petitioner
can be allowed.

28. The writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.37158 of 2012

M/s.
Dynamic
Education
Systems
(International) Limited and another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Bank of Baroda & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.D. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anadi Krishna Narayana
Sri V.D. Chauhan
Sri Manish Mehrotra.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Doctrine
of
''forum
conveniens"
explained-company
located
in
M.P.-
direction of company residing in M.P.-
Bank who advanced loan situated in
M.P.-property auctioned and saled in
M.P.-held-most appropriate forum for all
parties would be state of M.P.-court
declined to exercise discretionary powerpetition dismissed by evoking Doctrine of
''forum conveniens".

Held: Para 23

It is in this context that the doctrine of
''forum conveniens' has to be examined
and having so examined it and in view of
the decisions rendered by the Supreme
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Court and the Delhi High Court referred
to above, there is no manner of doubt
that the more appropriate forum for all
the parties to agitate the matter would
be the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Case law discussed:
(2007) 6 SCC 769; AIR 2011 DELHI 174;
(2004) 6 SCC 254; AIR 1976 SC 331; AIR 2010
Delhi 43

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.)

1. M/s. Dynamic Education Systems
(International)
Limited
(hereinafter
referred to as the 'Company') having its
registered office at Indore in Madhya
Pradesh and its Director who resides in
Indore have filed this petition for quashing
the order dated 24th April, 2012 passed by
the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at
Allahabad by which the three Appeals filed
under Section 20 of The Recovery of
Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred
to as the '1993 Act') for setting aside the
order dated 29th July, 2011 passed by the
Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur, have
been dismissed. The three Appeals were
filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal
at Jabalpur under Section 30 of the 1993
Act to assail the orders passed by the
Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery
Tribunal
at
Jabalpur
in
Original
Application/Execution Case No.84 of
2005. The petitioners have also sought the
quashing of the orders passed by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur as also the
orders passed by the Recovery Officer of
the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur.

2. It transpires from the records of the
writ petition that the petitioner-Company
having its registered office at Indore in the
State of Madhya Pradesh was granted a
loan of Rs.1.60 Crores by the Bank of
Baroda having its Branch office at Indore
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') and
for this purpose the property belonging to
the Company situated in Indore was
mortgaged in favour of the Bank. The
petitioner-Company committed default in
the payment of the loan amount and the
Bank filed Original Application No.114 of
2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal
at Jabalpur under Section 19 of the 1993
Act. The Debts Recovery Appellate at
Jabalpur issued the recovery certificate on
19th October, 2005. The mortgaged
property of the Company was auctioned on
14th December, 2006 and sale was made
in favour of respondent no.4-M/s. Dodeja
Builders Pvt. Ltd., Indore. It is against the
orders passed by the Recovery Officer of
the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur,
that the petitioner-Company filed three
Appeals before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal at Jabalpur under Section 30 of
the 1993 Act. These appeals were
dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal
at Jabalpur on 29th July, 2011 against
which three Appeals were filed by the
Company before the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad under
Section 20 of the 1993 Act. These appeals
have been dismissed by the common order
dated 24th April, 2012.

3. The orders passed by the Recovery
Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal at
Jabalpur, the order passed by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur and the
order passed by the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad have been
assailed in this petition.

4. A preliminary objection has been
raised by Sri Vikram D. Chauhan, learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
auction
purchaser and Sri Manish Mehrotra,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent-Bank that since the petitioner-
3 All] M/s. Dynamic Education Systems (International) Limited & anr V. Bank of Baroda & others 1187
Company has its registered office at
Indore, the respondent-Bank which gave
the loan is in Indore and the auction
purchaser is also in Indore, this Court
should refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of
''forum conveniens' and in support of this
contention, they have placed reliance upon
the decision of the Supreme Court in
Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of
Central Excise, (2007) 6 SCC 769 and the
Full Bench of five Judges of the Delhi
High Court in M/s. Sterling Agro
Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India &
Ors., AIR 2011 DELHI 174.

5. Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners has, however, submitted that
as the order passed by the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad is also
under challenge in this petition, part of
cause of action has arisen within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court and,
therefore, this Court will have the
jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. In
support of his contention, he has placed
reliance upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC
254. It is also his submission that even if
the doctrine of ''forum conveniens' is
applied, then too the writ petition can be
entertained by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the parties
have suggested that the preliminary
objection should be decided first.

7. The first issue that needs to be
decided is whether part of cause of action
has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction
of this Court.

8. In this connection learned counsel
for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the decision of the Supreme Court in
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) and
has submitted that since the order passed
by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
at Allahabad is also under challenge in this
petition, part of cause of action has arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court.

9. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.
(supra), the appellant-Company which had
its registered office at Mumbai obtained a
loan from Bhopal Branch of the State Bank
of India. Notice for repayment of the loan
was issued from Bhopal under the
provisions of ''The Securitisation &
Reconstruction of Financial Assets &
Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002' (hereinafter referred to as the ''2002
Act'). The writ petition was filed by the
appellant-Company in the Delhi High
Court to question the vires of the 2002 Act.
It was submitted by the appellantCompany before the Delhi High Court that
since
the
constitutionality
of
a
Parliamentary Act was in question, the
Delhi High Court would have the
jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
The petition was dismissed by the Delhi
High Court on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction. It is in this context
that the Supreme Court examined whether
cause of action wholly or in part had arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Delhi High Court for the writ petition to be
maintainable. The Supreme Court dealt
with "cause of action" and the scope of the
power conferred on the High Court under
Article 226(2) of the Constitution and
observed that even if a small fraction of
cause of action accrues within the
territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, the
said High Court will have the jurisdiction
and the relevant observations are as
follows:-
1188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

"6. Cause of action implies a right to
sue.
The
material
facts
which
are
imperative for the suitor to allege and
prove constitutes the cause of action.
Cause of action is not defined in any
statute. It has, however, been judicially
interpreted inter alia to mean that every
fact which would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to
support his right to the judgment of the
Court. Negatively put, it would mean that
everything which, if not proved, gives the
defendant an immediate right to judgment,
would be part of cause of action. Its
importance is beyond any doubt. For every
action, there has to be a cause of action, if
not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the
case may be, shall be rejected summarily.

7. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India reads thus:

"(2) The power conferred by Clause
(1) to issue directions, orders or writs to
any Government, authority or person may
also be exercised by any High Court
exercising jurisdiction in relation to the
territories within which the cause of action,
wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of
such power, notwithstanding that the seat
of such Government or authority or the
residence of such person is not within
those territories. "

8. Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil
Procedure reads as under :

"20. Other suits to be instituted where
defendants reside or cause of action
arises.--Subject to the limitation aforesaid,
every suit shall be instituted in a court
within
the
local
limits
of
whose
jurisdiction -

(a) - (b) * * *

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in
part, arises. "

9. Although in view of Section 141 of
the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions
thereof would not apply to a writ
proceedings, the phraseology used in
Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil
Procedure and Clause (2) of Article 226,
being in pari materia, the decisions of this
Court rendered on interpretation of Section
20(c) of CPC shall apply to the writ
proceedings also. Before proceeding to
discuss the matter further it may be pointed
out that the entire bundle of facts pleaded
need not constitute a cause of action as
what is necessary to be proved before the
petitioner can obtain a decree is the
material facts. The expression material
facts is also known as integral facts.

10. Keeping in view the expressions
used is Clause (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, indisputably even
if a small fraction of cause of action
accrues within the jurisdiction of the
Court, the Court will have jurisdiction
in the matter."
(emphasis supplied)

10. And after referring to the decision
of the Supreme Court in Nasiruddin Vs.
State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
AIR 1976 SC 331, the Supreme Court in
the aforesaid decision in Kusum Ingots &
Alloys Ltd. (supra) pointed out that the
place from where an appellate order or a
revisional order is passed may give rise to
a part of cause of action although the
original order is at a place outside the said
area and the relevant observations are as
follows:-

"25. The said decision is an authority
for the proposition that the place from
3 All] M/s. Dynamic Education Systems (International) Limited & anr V. Bank of Baroda & others 1189
where an appellate order or a revisional
order is passed may give rise to a part of
cause of action although the original order
was at a place outside the said area. When
a part of the cause of action arises within
one or the other High Court, it will be for
the petitioner to choose his forum.

...................

27. When an order, however, is
passed by a Court or Tribunal or an
executive
authority
whether
under
provisions of a statute or otherwise, a
part of cause of action arises at that
place. Even in a given case, when the
original authority is constituted at one
place and the appellate authority is
constituted at another, a writ petition
would be maintainable at both the
places. In other words, as order of the
appellate authority constitutes a part of
cause of action, a writ petition would be
maintainable in the High Court within
whose jurisdiction it is situate having
regard to the fact that the order of the
appellate authority is also required to be
set aside and as the order of the original
authority merges with that of the
appellate authority."
(emphasis supplied)

11. The aforesaid decision leaves no
manner of doubt that though the orders
against which the Appeals were filed
before the Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal at Allahabad were passed by the
Authority/Officer in Indore, part cause of
action would arise within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court as the order
passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal at Allahabad is also under
challenge in this petition. The petition,
therefore, can be entertained in the
Allahabad High Court.

12. The question, however, that
needs to be considered is whether even in
such a situation, this Court should, in its
discretion, decline to entertain the writ
petition by invoking the doctrine of ''forum
conveniens'.

13. In Black's Law Dictionary,
''forum conveniens' has been defined as
follows:

"The court in which an action is most
appropriately brought, considering the best
interests and convenience of the parties
and witnesses."

14. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.
(supra), the Supreme Court observed that
even if part of cause of action has arisen
with the territorial jurisdiction of a High
Court, it can still decline to entertain the
writ petition by invoking the doctrine of
''forum conveniens' and the observations
are :-

"30. We must, however, remind
ourselves that even if a small part of cause
of action arises within the territorial
jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by
itself may not be considered to be a
determinative factor compelling the High
Court to decide the matter on merit. In
appropriate cases, the Court may refuse
to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction
by invoking the doctrine of forum
conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bagga v.
Dewan Jagbir Sawhany, AIR 1941 Cal
670; Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal, (1945)
49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited
v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd.
1997 CWN 122; S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union
of India, (1994) 1 CHN 445 and New
Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1994
Delhi 126]."
(emphasis supplied)
1190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

15. In Ambica Industries (supra),
the
Supreme
Court
made
similar
observations:-

"41. Keeping in view the expression
"cause of action" used in Clause (2) of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
indisputably even if a small fraction
thereof accrues within the jurisdiction of
the
Court,
the
Court
will
have
jurisdiction in the matter though the
doctrine of forum conveniens may also
have to be considered."
(emphasis supplied)

16. In Mosaraf Hossain Khan Vs.
Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors., (2006)
3 SCC 658, the Supreme Court also
observed:-

"29. The High Courts, however,
must remind themselves about the
doctrine of forum non conveniens also.
[See Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners &
Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express,
(2006) 3 SCC 100; (2006) 2 Scale 30]:
(AIR 2006 SC 1828)"
(emphasis supplied)

17.

The
doctrine
of
''forum
conveniens' was also elaborately examined
by the Full Bench of five Judges of the
Delhi High Court in M/s. Sterling Agro
Industries Ltd. (supra). The petitionerCompany was located in the State of
Madhya Pradesh. The initial order was
passed by the Assistant Commissioner of
Customs, District Bhind in the State of
Madhya Pradesh, the appellate order was
passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)
Customs and Central Excise and Service
Tax at Indore in the State of Madhya
Pradesh but the revisional order was
passed by the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue, New Delhi. The writ petition was
filed in the Delhi High Court as the
petitioner was not satisfied with the order
passed by the Revisional Authority and for
the petition to be entertained in the Delhi
High Court reliance was placed on the
earlier Full Bench decision of three Judges
of the Delhi High Court in New India
Assurance Company Limited Vs. Union
of India & Ors., AIR 2010 Delhi 43 in
which the following observations were
made :-

"For the foregoing reasons, we hold
that where an order is passed by an
appellate
authority
or
a
revisional
authority, a part of cause of (sic action)
arises at that place. When the original
authority is situated at one place and the
appellate authority is situated at another, a
writ petition would be maintainable at both
the places. As the order of appellate
authority constitutes a part of cause of
action, a writ petition would be
maintainable in the High Court within
whose jurisdiction it is situate having
regard to the fact that the petitioner is
dominus litis to choose his forum, and
that since the original order merges into
the appellate order, the place where the
appellate authority is located is also
forum conveniens."
(emphasis supplied)

18. The Full Bench of five Judges in
M/s. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd.
(supra) agreed with the Full Bench of
three Judges in New India Assurance
Company Ltd. (supra) to the extent that
the order of the appellate authority
constitutes a part of cause of action so that
the writ petition can be entertained in the
High Court within whose jurisdiction the
appellate authority is situated, but the Full
Bench did not agree with the conclusion
3 All] M/s. Dynamic Education Systems (International) Limited & anr V. Bank of Baroda & others 1191
drawn by the earlier Full Bench that the
place where the appellate authority is
located is also ''forum conveniens' and
observed that the same may not be the
singular factor to compel the High Court to
decide the matter on merits as the High
Court can still refuse to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction by invoking this
doctrine. According to the Full Bench it is
obligatory on the part of the Court to see
the convenience of all the parties before it
and the relevant observations are as
follows:-

"31.
The
concept
of
forum
conveniens fundamentally means that it
is obligatory on the part of the court to
see the convenience of all the parties
before it. The convenience in its ambit
and sweep would include the existence
of more appropriate forum, expenses
involved, the law relating to the lis,
verification of certain facts which are
necessitous for just adjudication of the
controversy and such other ancillary
aspects. The balance of convenience is
also to be taken note of. Be it noted, the
Apex Court has clearly stated in the cases
of Kusum Ingots (supra), Mosaraf Hossain
Khan (supra) and Ambica Industries
(supra) about the applicability of the
doctrine of forum conveniens while
opining that arising of a part of cause of
action would entitle the High Court to
entertain the writ petition as maintainable.

32. The principle of forum conveniens
in its ambit and sweep encapsulates the
concept that a cause of action arising
within the jurisdiction of the Court would
not itself constitute to be the determining
factor compelling the Court to entertain the
matter. While exercising jurisdiction
under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the Court cannot
be totally oblivious of the concept of
forum conveniens. The Full Bench in
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra)
has not kept in view the concept of
forum conveniens and has expressed the
view that if the appellate authority who
has passed the order is situated in Delhi,
then the Delhi High Court should be
treated as the forum conveniens. We are
unable to subscribe to the said view.

33. In view of the aforesaid analysis,
we are inclined to modify the findings and
conclusions of the Full Bench in New
India Assurance Company Limited (supra)
and proceed to state our conclusions in
seriatim as follows:

(a) The finding recorded by the Full
Bench that the sole cause of action
emerges at the place or location where
the
tribunal/appellate
authority/revisional authority is situate
and the said High Court (i.e., Delhi High
Court) cannot decline to entertain the
writ petition as that would amount to
failure of the duty of the Court cannot
be accepted inasmuch as such a finding
is totally based on the situs of the
tribunal/appellate
authority/revisional
authority totally ignoring the concept of
forum conveniens.

(b) Even if a miniscule part of cause
of action arises within the jurisdiction of
this court, a writ petition would be
maintainable before this Court, however,
the cause of action has to be understood as
per the ratio laid down in the case of
Alchemist Ltd. (supra).

(c) An order of the appellate
authority constitutes a part of cause of
action to make the writ petition
maintainable in the High Court within
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
whose
jurisdiction
the
appellate
authority is situated. Yet, the same may
not be the singular factor to compel the
High Court to decide the matter on
merits. The High Court may refuse to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by
invoking
the
doctrine
of
forum
conveniens.

(d) The conclusion that where the
appellate or revisional authority is
located constitutes the place of forum
conveniens as stated in absolute terms
by the Full Bench is not correct as it will
vary from case to case and depend upon
the lis in question.

(e) The finding that the court may
refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article
226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked in a
mala fide manner is too restricted/
constricted as the exercise of power under
Article 226 being discretionary cannot be
limited or restricted to the ground of mala
fide alone.

(f)
While
entertaining
a writ
petition,
the
doctrine
of
forum
conveniens and the nature of cause of
action are required to be scrutinized by
the High Court depending upon the
factual matrix of each case in view of
what has been stated in Ambica
Industries (supra) and Adani Exports
Ltd. (supra).

(g) The conclusion of the earlier
decision of the Full Bench in New India
Assurance Company Limited (supra) "that
since the original order merges into the
appellate order, the place where the
appellate authority is located is also forum
conveniens" is not correct.

(h) Any decision of this Court
contrary to the conclusions enumerated
hereinabove stands overruled."
(emphasis supplied)

19. To examine this aspect, it will be
appropriate to reproduce the description of
the parties in the writ petition which is :-

"1. M/s. Dynamic Education Systems
(International)
Limited
having
its
registered office at 224, Khatiwala Tank,
Manikbagh Road, Indore M.P. through its
Director Sri Ravindra Pillai, S/o Sri
Raghav Pillai, R/o 224, Khatiwala Tank,
Manikbagh Road, Indore M.P.

2, Sri Ravindra Pillai, S/o Sri Raghav
Pillai,
R/o
224,
Khatiwala
Tank,
Manikbagh Road, Indore M.P
..............Petitioners
Versus

1. Bank of Baroda, Branch 13, Old
Palasiya, A.B. Road, M.P. through its
Branch Manager.

2. Smt. Annu Jain, W/o Sri Rakesh
Jain, R/o 57, Shiv Shakti Nagar, Indore
(M.P.)

3. Vaibhav Jain, S/o Sri Rakesh Jain,
R/o 57, Shiv Shakti Nagar, Indore (M.P

4. M/s. Dodeja Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Mohit Palace, 387, Khatiwala Tank in
front of Dwarika Garden, Indore (M.P.)
through its Director.

5.
Chairperson,
Debts
Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad.

...............Respondents"
3 All] M/s. Chauhan Road Lines and another V. Union of India and others
1193

20. From the description of the
parties and the facts stated in the writ
petition, it is seen that the petitionerCompany is located in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, its Director is residing in the State
of Madhya Pradesh, the Bank which had
advanced loan to the petitioner-Company
is situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh,
the property that was auctioned and sold is
situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh
and the auction purchaser is also in the
State of Madhya Pradesh.

21. In M/s. Starling Agro Industries
(supra), the Full Bench of the Delhi High
Court observed that it is obligatory for the
Court to see the convenience of the parties
before it and the convenience will include
the existence of more appropriate forum,
expenses involved, the law relating to the
lis, verification of certain facts which are
necessary
for
adjudication
of
the
controversy.

22. It is also stated by learned
counsel for the respondents that the Bank
has in fact filed a writ petition in the
Madhya Pradesh High Court as it also felt
aggrieved by the order passed by the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad.

23. It is in this context that the
doctrine of ''forum conveniens' has to be
examined and having so examined it and in
view of the decisions rendered by the
Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court
referred to above, there is no manner of
doubt that the more appropriate forum for
all the parties to agitate the matter would
be the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

24. The Court, therefore, refuses to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by
invoking
the
doctrine
of
''forum
conveniens'.

25. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 80076
of 2012.
IN
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37510 of
2011.

M/s. Chauhan Road Lines and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants /Petitioners:
Mr. R.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Sri G.K. Malviya
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh

Counsel For the Respondents:
Mr. Prakash Padia
S.C.
A.S.G.I.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Review
Application-mode of drafting with overall
dignity to the Court should be-instead of
using hard word "manifestly erred"-
descent and guarded words be used.

Held: Para 2

Before entering into the grounds of
review, we want to make it clear that
there should be a discipline in drafting of
review
application/s
because
it
is
normally placed before the Court which
has passed the original order but not
before any appellate Court. Therefore,
the review application is to be made with