Territorial Jurisdiction in company suits depends on residence, business location, or cause of action; winding up alone does not confer it.

Territorial jurisdiction under section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure depends on the defendants' residence or business location, or on where the cause of action wholly or partly arises. A company's winding-up at Hyderabad and the presence of the official liquidator there did not alter the company's registered and business location at Karimnagar. Leave to sue under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 merely permitted institution of the suit and did not itself create a cause of action or confer territorial jurisdiction. The winding-up proceedings at Hyderabad were separate statutory proceedings and could not be treated as part of the cause of action for the money suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the City Civil Court at Hyderabad had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit against the company represented by the official liquidator merely because the company was under winding up at Hyderabad and leave had been granted under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction under section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure depends on where the defendants reside or carry on business, or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. The company's registered and business location remained at Karimnagar, and the official liquidator's office at Hyderabad did not change that position. The grant of leave to sue under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 only permitted institution of the suit and did not itself create a cause of action or confer territorial jurisdiction. The winding-up order and pendency of winding-up proceedings at Hyderabad were statutory proceedings and did not form part of the cause of action for the money suit.

Conclusion: The Hyderabad court lacked territorial jurisdiction, and the suit was competent only before the court at Karimnagar.

---