Whether territorial jurisdiction of court can be decided on basis of convenience of parties?

 It   is   undoubtedly   true   that   the   place   where   the
property is situate would be relevant in determining the territorial
jurisdiction.     That   the   Magistrate   in   Thane   has   territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint can be more obviously seen,
and the facts conferring territorial jurisdiction upon the Magistrate
in   Mumbai,   may   not   be   so   obvious   and   need   greater
contemplation.     However,   that   would   not   mean   that   the
complainant should be forced to select a forum, which may not be
convenient to him.  Territorial Jurisdiction is actually a matter of
convenience.     The   law   does   not   treat   the   lack   of   territorial
jurisdiction on par with lack of jurisdiction arising on account of
other factors such as incompetency of the Court with respect to thesubject matter of the dispute etc.   Section 462 of the Code is
indicative of this principle.  Under section 407 of the Code, cases
can   be   transferred   even   to   the   Courts   which   lack   territorial
jurisdiction provided such transferee Courts are in other respect
competent to inquire into or try the offences in question.  Thus,
the territorial jurisdiction is a matter of convenience, and where
expedient, convenient or necessary, a case can be transferred to a
Court not having territorial jurisdiction.   Certainly, this will not
justify the proceeding with a complaint by a Magistrate who lacks
territorial   jurisdiction,   but   the   relevant   provisions   have   been
mentioned to emphasize that lack of territorial jurisdiction is not
such a vital factor as the lack of jurisdiction arising out of some
other factor such as inability or incompetency of the Court to dealwith the subject matter of the dispute.   In the instant case, the
parties are from Mumbai.  Their registered offices are at Mumbai.
It is not that it would be more convenient for any of the parties to
have the case tried before a Magistrate in Thane – atleast it has
not been suggested. 
28 When in this background, the fact that the agreement
between the parties was entered into at Mumbai is taken into
consideration, it is not possible to hold that the  Magistrate  at
Mumbai would have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and
try  the   alleged  offences.    At  the   cost  of  repetition,  it  may  be
observed that executing an agreement is the very basis of the
promoter   –   purchaser   relationship   and   is   an   intricate   and
inseparable part of the general liabilities of a promoter.  When the
violation of such general liabilities is alleged, which violations are
alleged to be amounting to an offence punishable under section 13
of MOFA, it cannot be said that the act of executing the agreement
is not an integral part of the alleged offence.  Therefore, the Court
within whose local jurisdiction the agreement was entered into,
would have territorial jurisdiction to try an offence punishable
under section 13 of MOFA, irrespective of the place where the

property is situate. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.830 OF 2014
Dhirajlal P. Desai .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents


   CORAM :   ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
ORDER PRONOUNCED     :    3rd SEPTEMBER, 2015
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)2331

Print Page

How to determine jurisdiction of court if offences is committed by promotor under MOFA Act?

MOFA is a social legislation.   It has been enacted,
inter alia, to curb the malpractices in the construction and sale of
flats taken on ownership basis, and is aimed at regulating of the
promotion of the construction, sale, management and transfer of
flats taken on ownership basis.   It casts several liabilities on a
promoter which arise upon execution of a written agreement of
the purchase of a flat between the promoter and the purchaser.
The execution of an agreement between the promoter and the
purchaser is the very basis of the liabilities and responsibilities that
are cast upon a promoter by MOFA.  In such a situation, when a
particular violation/s or contravention/s of the provisions of MOFA
which cannot be satisfactorily determined as having taken place 'in
a particular legal area' takes place, such contraventions  must be
treated as having taken place in the area  where the agreement
between the promoter and the purchaser has been entered into
and executed.
When in this background, the fact that the agreement
between the parties was entered into at Mumbai is taken into
consideration, it is not possible to hold that the  Magistrate  at
Mumbai would have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and
try  the   alleged  offences.    At  the   cost  of  repetition,  it  may  be
observed that executing an agreement is the very basis of the
promoter   –   purchaser   relationship   and   is   an   intricate   and
inseparable part of the general liabilities of a promoter.  When the
violation of such general liabilities is alleged, which violations are
alleged to be amounting to an offence punishable under section 13
of MOFA, it cannot be said that the act of executing the agreement
is not an integral part of the alleged offence.  Therefore, the Court
within whose local jurisdiction the agreement was entered into,
would have territorial jurisdiction to try an offence punishable
under section 13 of MOFA, irrespective of the place where the
property is situate. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.830 OF 2014
Dhirajlal P. Desai .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents
­­­

­­­
   CORAM :   ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

ORDER PRONOUNCED     :    3rd SEPTEMBER, 2015
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)2331
­­­

Print Page