Contractual territorial jurisdiction clause barred writ petition in Bombay High Court; relief had to be sought in Chennai.

A writ petition challenging a federation's notice, resolutions, disaffiliation and refusal to reaffiliate was held not entertainable in the Bombay High Court because the governing bye-law confined suits and legal actions against the federation to Chennai, or the place where its secretariat was functioning. On that basis, territorial jurisdiction was treated as contractually excluded for courts other than those at Chennai. The Supreme Court authority relied on by the petitioner was found inapplicable on the facts, and the reliefs against other respondents were regarded as incidental to the principal challenge against the federation. The petitioner was directed to pursue relief before the courts at Chennai.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the High Court in view of the contractual clause confining legal actions against the federation to courts at Chennai.

Analysis: The petition challenged the federation's notice, resolutions, disaffiliation and refusal to reaffiliate. The governing bye-law stipulated that suits and legal actions against the federation could be instituted only at Chennai or where its secretariat was functioning. On that basis, the High Court held that territorial jurisdiction stood excluded for courts other than those at Chennai. The reliance placed on a Supreme Court decision was held inapplicable on the facts, and the reliefs against the other respondents were treated as incidental to the principal challenge against the federation.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable in the Bombay High Court for want of territorial jurisdiction and the petitioner was left to pursue relief before the courts at Chennai.

---