Whether Communication By Advocate About An Order amounts Production Of Certified Copy?

Since it is well-settled that communication by an advocate is
as good as production of certified copy of the order in question,
unless strongly rebutted, prima facie the trial court acted without
jurisdiction in disbelieving such communication and disposing of
the application in question on merits.

In the High Court at Calcutta
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
C.O. No. 631 of 2018

Smt. Bindu Dadlani  Vs Smt. Gita Ghosh

Print Page

Where communication of termination order is served on employee,court at that place will have jurisdiction to try said case

Therefore, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. (supra) will have no application and will not help the petitioner for holding that this Court has territorial jurisdiction. Even as per the case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. (supra) at least a part of cause of action has to arise in Delhi for this Court to have territorial jurisdiction to file a case, and no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi in the present case because simply existence of an order in the file of the Government at Delhi does not create any right or liability, and which right or liability is created only on communication of the order, and which order dated 28.10.2015 in the present case was communicated to the petitioner at Goa.

10. In view of the above, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction and the writ petition is therefore dismissed, and the petitioner can always approach the competent court of territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Valmiki J. Mehta, J.)

Mr. P.K.S. Shrivastava 

v.

Union of India and Anr

W.P. (C) No. 10392/2015

Decided on December 1, 2016

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6149

Print Page

Whether order passed in file unless served or communicated to affected person will be effective order?

Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, if it is held
that the order would become a nullity, it really does not
serve the purpose of the Control Order. On the contrary, it
frustrates it and, therefore, the interpretation placed by the
High Court on Paragraph 9 in juxtaposition with Paragraph
10 to treat the order has null and void is neither correct nor
sound. It is desirable that the authority shall pass an order
within 30 days from the date of show cause. Be it noted
that there are two contingencies when the show cause is
issued for violation or when an order of suspension is
passed. There can be no trace of doubt that the order will
take effect from the date when it is served. The order,
unless it is served, definitely neither the agent nor the
dealer would suspend its activities or obey any order, for he
has not been communicated. Regard being had to this
aspect, it is to be seen whether the prescription of 30 days
from the date of order as provided in Paragraph 10 would
make the order null and void. The order passed by the
authority comes into effect when it is communicated. An
order passed in file in case of this nature would not be an
effective order, for it is adverse to the interest of the dealer
or agent and, therefore, paragraph 10 has to be given a
purposive meaning. It has to convey that 30 days from the
date of the order which is an effective order, and that is the
date of communication. Unless such an interpretation is
placed, the intention of the rule making authority and also
the intention behind the object and reasons behind the
Control Order and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
would be frustrated. Thus, we are of the considered
opinion that the view expressed by the High Court on this
score also is absolutely incorrect and wholly unsustainable.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2825 OF 2015
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30338 OF 2014]
State of West Bengal and Others 
 V
R.K.B.K. Ltd. & Anr. 
Dated;September 04, 2015
Dipak Misra, J.
Citation;(2015)10 SCC369

Print Page