<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1984 (4) TMI 248 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101110</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction depends on where the material cause of action arises, not on incidental communication or business presence. An order taking over management was made at Delhi, while the factory, registered office, and consequential possession and management were in Bihar; publication in the Official Gazette was only a condition for effectiveness and did not shift the place of making the order. Forwarding a copy to directors in Calcutta and the existence of branch or sales activity there were insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable before the Calcutta High Court for want of territorial jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:47:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138160" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (4) TMI 248 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101110</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction depends on where the material cause of action arises, not on incidental communication or business presence. An order taking over management was made at Delhi, while the factory, registered office, and consequential possession and management were in Bihar; publication in the Official Gazette was only a condition for effectiveness and did not shift the place of making the order. Forwarding a copy to directors in Calcutta and the existence of branch or sales activity there were insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable before the Calcutta High Court for want of territorial jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>