Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 and disputed contractual claims barred writ relief; pre-take-over liability stayed with the company.

Article 226 territorial jurisdiction depends on facts that form an integral part of the cause of action; mere residence, business presence, or receipt of correspondence at a place is insufficient where the contract, payments, and supply obligations are centered elsewhere, so the Calcutta High Court lacked jurisdiction. Section 3(7) of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 leaves pre-take-over liabilities enforceable against the textile company itself, not against the Central Government or the Custodian, so the alleged liability could not be enforced against them. A writ petition was also not maintainable for supply of goods and refund because the claim turned on seriously disputed facts and a pure contractual dispute without a statutory duty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the facts pleaded; (ii) whether the alleged pre-take-over liability could be enforced against the Central Government or the Custodian in view of Section 3(7) of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983; (iii) whether a writ petition could be maintained for supply of goods and refund on the basis of seriously disputed facts and an alleged contractual claim.

Issue (i): Whether the Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the facts pleaded.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on facts that form an integral part of the cause of action. Mere residence or business of the petitioners at Calcutta, or receipt of correspondence there, was not enough when the contract, alleged payments, and supply obligations were centered at Bombay. Facts having no nexus with the lis do not confer jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Calcutta High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged pre-take-over liability could be enforced against the Central Government or the Custodian in view of Section 3(7) of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983.

Analysis: Section 3(7) declares that liabilities incurred by the textile company before the appointed day remain enforceable against the company and not against the Central Government or the Custodian. On the pleadings, any obligation arising from advance payment and non-supply of cloth, if at all established, was a pre-take-over liability of the textile company.

Conclusion: The alleged liability was not enforceable against the Central Government or the Custodian.

Issue (iii): Whether a writ petition could be maintained for supply of goods and refund on the basis of seriously disputed facts and an alleged contractual claim.

Analysis: The existence of the contracts, the receipt and earmarking of payments, and the availability of goods were all specifically disputed. Such matters required evidence and could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction. In addition, a writ of mandamus cannot issue to enforce a pure business contract in the absence of a statutory duty, and the petition was also highly belated.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on these facts.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's judgment failed, and the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge stood restored with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: For territorial jurisdiction under Article 226, only facts having a direct nexus with the dispute constitute part of the cause of action, and a writ of mandamus cannot be used to enforce a purely contractual claim involving disputed facts or a pre-take-over liability excluded by statute.

---