JUDGMENT : (Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent pertaining to its Demand Notice u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 bearing reference AFC/ELR Br./73 8413/MR&R/2018-19/2295, dated 23.01.2019 and the consequential demand letters dated 25.03.2019 and 08.04.2019 bearing No.AFC/ELR Br./73 8413/MR&R/2018-19/2734 and reference No.AFC/ELR Br./73 8413/MR&R/201920 respectively, and to quash the same and consequentially direct the respondent to grant sufficient time and opportunity to the petitioner to pay the balance outstanding loan amount due to the respondent.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the records carefully. 2. The petitioner company is having its registered office at Chennai, Tamilnadu and its Fertilizers and Chemical Division at West Godavari District, Andra Pradesh. It has availed Medium Term loans from the Andhra State Finance Corporation at Andhra Pradesh which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has mortgaged its immovable properties at Andhra Pradesh for availing the loans. For the petitioner default in making re-payment, the respondent has issued demand notices under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 calling upon the petitioner to repay the loan amount or else, it will proceed against the assets of the petitioner mentioned in the notice. Challenging the said demand notices issued on different dates, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Today, the matter is listed under the caption “for maintainability”. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though the loan transaction took place at Andhra Pradesh, the registered office of the petitioner is at Chennai, Tamilnadu and hence, the writ petition is maintainable. To buttress his submission, he relies upon the following judgments. 3. Today, the matter is listed under the caption “for maintainability”. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though the loan transaction took place at Andhra Pradesh, the registered office of the petitioner is at Chennai, Tamilnadu and hence, the writ petition is maintainable. To buttress his submission, he relies upon the following judgments. (i) In Union of India and others v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., ( 1984 (2) SCC 646 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “M/S. Oswal Woollen Mills Limited having its registered office at Ludhiana in the State of Punjab and a branch office at Calcutta, and Narayan Das Jain, Secretary of the Company have filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court seeking various reliefs against the Union of India (through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi), the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta and the State Trading Corporation of India, New Delhi. The primary prayer in the writ petition is to prevent or to quash an apprehended or purported action under clause 8-B of the Import Control Order. All the other reliefs sought in the writ petition revolve round the principal relief regarding clause 8-B of the Import Control Order. The other prayers are either ancillary or incidental to the principal prayer or are of an interlocutory character. Having regard to the fact that the registered office of the company is at Ludhiana and the principal respondents against whom the primary relief is sought are at New Delhi, one would have expected the writ petition to be filed either in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana or in the Delhi High Court. The writ petitioners however have chosen the Calcutta High Court as the forum perhaps because one of the interlocutory reliefs which is sought is in respect of a consignment of beef tallow which has arrived at the Calcutta Port. The writ petitioners however have chosen the Calcutta High Court as the forum perhaps because one of the interlocutory reliefs which is sought is in respect of a consignment of beef tallow which has arrived at the Calcutta Port. An inevitable result of the filing of writ petitions elsewhere than at the place where the concerned offices and the relevant records are located is to delay prompt return and contests We do not desire to probe further into the question whether the writ petition was filed by design or accident in the Calcutta High Court when the office of the Company is in the State of Punjab and all the principal respondents are in Delhi. But we do feel disturbed that such writ petitions are often deliberately filed in distant High Courts, as part of a manoeuvre in a legal battle, so as to render it difficult for the officials at Delhi to move applications to vacate stay where it becomes necessary to file such applications.” (ii) In HV Jayaram vs Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd., ( 2000(1) CTC 168 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “In H.P. Gupta v. Hiralal ( 1970 (1) SCC 437 ), the Court considered a similar provision of Section 207 of the Companies Act, which provides for payment of dividend within 42-days of its declaration by a company and its non payment within stipulated period is punishable. Section inter alia provides that where dividend is declared by the company but has not been paid, or warrant in respect of thereof has not been posted within 42-days from the date of its declaration, to any shareholder entitled to the payment of dividend, then it would be an offence punishable under Section 207. In that case, Court also considered Section 205(5)(b), which is similar to Section 53, which inter alia provides that any dividend payable may be paid by cash or a cheque or a warrant sent by post directed to the registered address of the shareholder entitled to the payment of the dividend. The Court held that when the company posts the dividend warrant at the registered address of the shareholder, the post office becomes the agent of the shareholder and the loss of a dividend warrant during the transit thereafter is at the risk of the shareholder. The Court held that when the company posts the dividend warrant at the registered address of the shareholder, the post office becomes the agent of the shareholder and the loss of a dividend warrant during the transit thereafter is at the risk of the shareholder. The Court further held that the place where the dividend warrant would be posted is the place where the company has its registered office and the offence under Section 207 of the Act would also occur at the place where the failure to discharge that obligation arises, namely, the failure to post the dividend warrant within 42-days. In the facts of that case, the Court observed thus: - The venue of the offence, therefore, would be Delhi and not Meerut, and the Court competent to try the offence would be that Court within whose jurisdiction the offence takes place, i.e., Delhi. This should be so both in law and common-sense, for, if held otherwise, the directors of companies can be prosecuted at hundreds of places on an allegation by shareholders that they have not received the warrant. That cannot be the intention of the Legislature when it enacted Section 207 and made failure to pay or post a dividend warrant within 42 days from the declaration of the dividend an offence. ........... However, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Smt. Indra Kala {(1997) 24 CLA 203 (Raj.)}. In the said case, complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate at Jaipur in Rajasthan for the offences punishable under Section 113 of the Act against the directors and officers of the company alleging that the complainant had purchased 200 shares of the Company and had duly sent such shares to the head office of the company for registration of the transfer in its books, but despite repeated requests, reminders and efforts made by her, the Company did not register the transfer of the shares in her name. Registered office of the company was at Delhi. The High Court negatived the contention of the company that Judicial Magistrate at Jaipur did not have jurisdiction to deal with the case by holding thus: - Company collects money from the public at large by selling its shares and transactions of sale and purchase are governed by the provisions of the Companies Act. The High Court negatived the contention of the company that Judicial Magistrate at Jaipur did not have jurisdiction to deal with the case by holding thus: - Company collects money from the public at large by selling its shares and transactions of sale and purchase are governed by the provisions of the Companies Act. Registration of the transferred shares is one of the duties of the company in the course of conducting its business according to the provisions of law. Therefore, the interest of the members of the public transacting such business cannot be allowed to be defeated on the plea that relief to the aggrieved persons can be granted only at the place where the office of the company is located. In our view, it appears that the attention of the learned Judge was not drawn to the decision rendered by this Court in H.P. Gupta v. Hiralal { 1970(1) SCC 437 } and also to Section 113 of the Act, which inter alia provides that company shall deliver the documents, such as, certificates of shares, debentures and certificates of debenture stocks allotted or transferred in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 53. Section 53 prescribes the mode of delivery inter alia by sending the document by post at registered address and sub-section (2) is the deeming provision for delivery of such letter. In Upendra Kumar Joshi v. Manik Lal Chatterjee and others, {1982 (Vol.52) Company Cases 177 (Patna)}, the Patna High Court has followed the decision rendered by this Court in the case of H.P. Gupta (Supra) and has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the cause of action would arise at the place where registered office of the company is situated. ” 5. To decide the issue 'whether the present writ petition is maintainable before the High Court of Madras or not, it is necessary to extract Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is extracted below:- “226. ” 5. To decide the issue 'whether the present writ petition is maintainable before the High Court of Madras or not, it is necessary to extract Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is extracted below:- “226. (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions orders or writs, including 1[writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.] (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.” 6. The constitutional provision has thus made it clear in an unambiguous term that the writ petition may also be entertained by such High Court notwithstanding the fact that the seat of the respondent is not within its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partly arise. (emphasis added) 7. In this case, loan was advanced by the Andhra State Finance Corporation at Andhra Pradesh. The Loan availed by the petitioner company was for the purpose of developing its Fertilizers and Chemical Division at West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh. Assets of the petitioner company located at Andhra Pradesh State. These assets are under mortgage/hypothecation to the respondent. The demand notice is for recovery of the said loan and in case of failure, the demand notice says that, the management will exercise the powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation's Act, 1951 against the assets under mortgage / hypothecation of the petitioner. 8. 'When the respondent seat is not within the territorial limits of this Court' and 'when no 'cause of action' arise within the jurisdiction of this Court', just for the reason and fact that the petitioner's registered office being located at Chennai, this Court cannot entertain the Writ Petition. 8. 'When the respondent seat is not within the territorial limits of this Court' and 'when no 'cause of action' arise within the jurisdiction of this Court', just for the reason and fact that the petitioner's registered office being located at Chennai, this Court cannot entertain the Writ Petition. If this Writ Petition is entertained, then, it will be against the Constitution and also against the spirit of the Hon’ble Supreme court observation in Oswal woollen Mills case (cited supra), that, “an inevitable result of the filing of writ petitions elsewhere than at the place where the concerned offices and relevant records are located is to delay prompt return and contest”. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Courts finds that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed at the SR stage itself. As a result, the Registry is hereby directed to return the papers to the petitioner so as to enable him to move before the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction. No costs.