https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106580 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was upheld for a writ petition challenging a Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal order because the appellate order was the operative decision after merger of the original Tribunal order. The Court held that, since the appellate order was made in Mumbai and the petitioners also resided there, a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits. It distinguished the Supreme Court authority relied on by the respondents as involving a challenge to the vires of a notification, not an appealable adjudication on merits, and held that the contrary single-judge view did not correctly state the law. en-us Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:45:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106580 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was upheld for a writ petition challenging a Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal order because the appellate order was the operative decision after merger of the original Tribunal order. The Court held that, since the appellate order was made in Mumbai and the petitioners also resided there, a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits. It distinguished the Supreme Court authority relied on by the respondents as involving a challenge to the vires of a notification, not an appealable adjudication on merits, and held that the contrary single-judge view did not correctly state the law. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106580