SHRI SHIVNERI SAHAKARI BANK LTD ICHALKARNJI v. RUPEE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND ANR
Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court Benches: Interpretation of Rule 3A and Application of Article 227 for Disputes Arising in Specified Districts.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:53738
Decision Date: 09-12-2025
List of Laws
Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960; Rule 3A of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960; Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956; Doctrine of Merger; Code of Civil Procedure
- Facts: Shri Shivneri Sahakari Bank Ltd., the petitioner, filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order arising from a dispute originating in Kolhapur District. The dispute involved a letter of credit issued by the petitioner's Kolhapur branch, with all relevant transactions occurring in Kolhapur. The Cooperative Court at Kolhapur initially dismissed the dispute, but the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court at Pune allowed the appeal.
- Procedural Posture: The case came before the Bombay High Court to determine whether the writ petition should be heard at the principal seat or by the Single Judge at the Kolhapur bench, considering the territorial jurisdiction and the newly inserted Rule 3A of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.
- Issue: (1) Does Rule 3A of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, mandatorily govern the forum for hearing writ petitions arising from Kolhapur District? (2) Does the doctrine of merger dictate that the appellate order passed at Pune determines the proper forum for a writ petition under Article 227? (3) Does the absence of the expression "cause of action" in Article 227 prevent the High Court from adopting a territorial criterion for internal allocation of work?
- Holding: The High Court held that the writ petition must be heard by the Single Judge sitting at Kolhapur. Rule 3A is mandatory and governs the forum. The doctrine of merger does not alter the territorial allocation, and the absence of "cause of action" in Article 227 does not prevent the High Court from adopting territorial criteria for internal management.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Rule 3A clearly mandates that all matters arising from specified districts, including Kolhapur, shall be heard by the Kolhapur bench. The origin of the dispute lies in Kolhapur, making Rule 3A applicable. The doctrine of merger, intended to give finality to appellate decisions, does not dictate the bench for hearing a writ petition. The Court relied on State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik and Prakash Chand to emphasize the Chief Justice's authority to allocate work and the binding nature of the High Court's rules. The Court also distinguished Nasiruddin and Kusum Ingots, stating they address inter-state jurisdictional issues, not internal allocation within a single High Court. The focus should be on the location of the original authority, not just the appellate tribunal.
🔒 For Members Only