Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2321 (BOM)

Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India

2018-09-25

M.S.KARNIK, R.M.SAVANT

body2018
DECISION : 1. The above writ petition has been filed for direction to be issued to the respondent No. 2 - Federation to withdraw and/or recall Show Cause Notice dated 12th September, 2016 issued by the respondent No. 2, challenging the letter dated 5th January, 2017 and impugning the Resolutions dated 25th December] 2016 and 31st March, 2017 passed by the Central Council of the respondent No. 2-Federation. The second substantive relief which is sought is direction against the respondent No. 2 - Federation to reaffiliate the petitioner's Association as the State Association for the State of Maharashtra and to disaffiliate the respondent No. 3- Association. Hence the epitome of the challenge is disaffiliation of the petitioner's Association by the respondent No. 2 and the affiliation granted to respondent No. 3. 2. On behalf of the respondent No. 2 -Federation preliminary objection is raised by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dani as regards the maintainability of the above writ petition in this Court on the ground of jurisdiction. The Learned Senior Counsel would place reliance on Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye-Laws of the respondent No. 2. The said Clause reads thus:- "21. Legal Course (i) The Federation shall sue and or be sued only in the name of the Hon. Secretary of the Federation, (ii) Any Suits/Legal actions against the Federation shall be instituted only in the courts at Chennai, where the Registered Office of All India Chess Federation is situated or at the place where the Secretariat of the All India Chess Federation is functioning." Hence the reading of the said Clause discloses that the Suits/Legal actions against the respondent No. 2 i.e. Federation shall be instituted only in the courts at Chennai where the Registered Office of the respondent No. 2 is situated. Hence a body which is affiliated to the respondent No. 2 subscribes to the said Clause 21 and thereby admits to the ouster of jurisdiction of all courts except the courts at Chennai. 3. We therefore find substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 2 as regards our territorial jurisdiction to entertain the above writ petition. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, would seek to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2014) 9 S.C.C. 329 in the matter of (Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, would seek to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2014) 9 S.C.C. 329 in the matter of (Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others), and especially paragraphs 14 and 15 thereof. We have gone through the said judgment of the Apex Court. In our view the said judgment was turning on the factual situation which was prevalent in the said case and it is in the said context that the Apex Court upheld the exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court at Patna. In the facts of the present case when there is existence of Clause 21 which we have adverted to herein above, in our view, the jurisdiction of the other courts except the courts at Chennai in respect of any suits/Legal action which are brought against the respondent No. 2 are ousted. Though the reliefs have also been sought against the respondent No. 2 the same would also not confer jurisdiction as the reliefs against the respondent No. 3 can be said to be incidental reliefs to the reliefs which we have stated in the earlier part of this order. Hence we decline to entertain the writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. However, we permit the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts at Chennai for the reliefs sought. 5. Needless to state that the contentions of the parties on merits of the challenge are kept open for being urged before the Appropriate Court. 6. The above petition is accordingly disposed of.