Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 upheld where the appellate tribunal order operated after merger and part of the cause of action arose locally.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was upheld for a writ petition challenging a Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal order because the appellate order was the operative decision after merger of the original Tribunal order. The Court held that, since the appellate order was made in Mumbai and the petitioners also resided there, a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits. It distinguished the Supreme Court authority relied on by the respondents as involving a challenge to the vires of a notification, not an appealable adjudication on merits, and held that the contrary single-judge view did not correctly state the law.

---

---

Issues: Whether this Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The challenge was directed against the appellate order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, not merely the original order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Applying the principle of merger, the original order was treated as having merged in the appellate order, making the appellate order the operative one. Since the appellate order was made in Mumbai and the petitioners also resided there, a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of this Court. The earlier Supreme Court decision relied on by the respondents was distinguished because it concerned a challenge to the vires of a notification and not an appealable adjudication on merits by the Tribunal. The Court also held that the contrary single-judge decision did not correctly state the law.

Conclusion: The Court held that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

---