Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 requires a material cause of action link; mere office presence is insufficient.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action arises within the court's territory. Mere presence of an office, assets, or incidental business activity is not enough unless those facts form part of the operative grievance. On the stated facts, the income-tax survey, demand and consequential proceedings originated in New Delhi, where the assessee was registered, and the impugned action flowed from that Delhi-based process. The asserted Chennai connection was therefore insufficient, and the writ challenge was not maintainable before the Madras High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the Income-tax authority's action was maintainable before the Madras High Court on the basis that part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: Under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, territorial jurisdiction depends on whether the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the court's territory. For that purpose, only material, essential, or integral facts having a nexus with the lis are relevant. The location of the petitioner's office, the presence of assets, or incidental business operations by themselves do not confer jurisdiction unless they form part of the operative facts giving rise to the grievance. On the admitted facts, the survey, demand, and consequential proceedings were initiated by the Income-tax authority at New Delhi, the assessee was registered there, and the impugned action flowed from that Delhi-based process. The asserted link with Chennai was held insufficient to constitute a part of the cause of action for invoking jurisdiction in Madras.

Conclusion: The writ court had no territorial jurisdiction; the challenge was not maintainable before the Madras High Court.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the alleged infringement of rights was traceable to proceedings at New Delhi, not to any material part of the cause of action within Madras.

Ratio Decidendi: Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 is attracted only when a material part of the cause of action arises within the court's territory, and mere presence of an office or incidental business activity there is insufficient.

---