TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the High Court of Karnataka under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India on the basis that part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction.
Analysis: The challenge was to orders passed by authorities functioning within Andhra Pradesh, and the question was whether any part of the cause of action arose in Karnataka so as to confer jurisdiction under Article 226(2). The Court found that the purchase transactions and the determination of liability were held, on the material before the authorities, to have taken place in Andhra Pradesh. The appellant had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, obtained relief there, and thereafter submitted to the jurisdiction of the statutory authorities in Andhra Pradesh. In these circumstances, no part of the cause of action was held to have arisen within Karnataka, and the attempt to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court was found impermissible.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable before the Karnataka High Court.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the Karnataka High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging orders of the Andhra Pradesh authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: For jurisdiction under Article 226(2), a petitioner must show that a real part of the cause of action arose within the Court's territory; where the impugned orders emanate from another State and the material facts establish the dispute within that State, territorial jurisdiction is not conferred merely because the petitioner alleges some ancillary connection elsewhere.
TaxTMI 
