Territorial jurisdiction in writ challenges turns on where the impugned jurisdictional acts and proceedings were carried out.

Territorial jurisdiction for a writ challenging the District Magistrate's assumption of jurisdiction and the MSME Council's reference to arbitration under Section 18 of the MSMED Act depended on where the impugned jurisdictional acts occurred. Because the assumption of jurisdiction, conciliation process, and reference to arbitration were all carried out in Delhi, the relevant cause of action arose there and not merely where communications were received. The earlier invocation of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act did not change that territorial analysis. On that basis, the writ petition was not entertainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition challenging the District Magistrate's assumption of jurisdiction and the subsequent reference under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

Analysis: The challenge was directed not at the merits of the commercial dispute but at the assumption of jurisdiction by the District Magistrate at Shahdara, Delhi, and the later reference to arbitration by the MSME Council, Delhi. The impugned acts, the conciliation process, and the reference to arbitration were all situated within Delhi. The Court held that, for a writ challenging such jurisdictional action, the relevant cause of action arose where the jurisdiction was assumed and the proceedings were carried out, and not merely where communications were received. The earlier invocation of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 did not alter the territorial analysis for the present challenge.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable before the Court for want of territorial jurisdiction.

---