Territorial jurisdiction in share transfer disputes follows the company's registered office, barring Calcutta forum in this complaint.

Territorial jurisdiction was unavailable to the Calcutta consumer forum in a dispute concerning transfer and registration of share certificates, because the relevant cause of action arose where the company's registered office was situated in Mumbai. The maintainability objection was based on the place where the share register was maintained and the transfer process was effected, but the governing principle treated the registered office as the ative jurisdictional link. The complaint therefore could not be entertained by the Calcutta forum for want of territorial jurisdiction, and the objection succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the consumer forum at Calcutta had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint relating to transfer of shares when the company's registered office was at Mumbai.

Analysis: The dispute concerned transfer and registration of share certificates, and the maintainability objection was founded on the place where the register of shares was maintained and where the transfer process was effected. Relying on the governing principle that the cause of action in such matters arises where the company's registered office is situated, the forum at Calcutta was held to lack jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The complaint could not have been entertained by the Calcutta forum for want of territorial jurisdiction, and the objection succeeded.

---