Territorial writ jurisdiction under Article 226 failed where insolvency proceedings were tied to the corporate debtor's registered office.

Article 226(2) permits a writ only where part of the cause of action arises within the State, but a mere Kerala connection to the loan transaction was insufficient to found jurisdiction. Insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were initiated before the National Company Law Tribunal at the place of the corporate debtor's registered office in New Delhi, and the statutory scheme under Sections 95 and 60 governed territorial jurisdiction. The Kerala High Court therefore lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ challenge to those insolvency proceedings, and the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in Kerala High Court on the ground that part of the cause of action arose within the State, and whether the impugned insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi, could be challenged in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India permits invocation of writ jurisdiction where a part of the cause of action arises within the State. The credit facility had been obtained in Kerala, but the insolvency process was initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the corporate debtor's registered office was located. As the registered office of the corporate debtor was at New Delhi and the proceedings were founded on the statutory scheme of Sections 95 and 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the mere fact that the loan transaction had a Kerala connection did not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Kerala High Court.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be not maintainable before the Kerala High Court and was dismissed.

---