https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154760 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether the pleaded facts show that the cause of action, wholly or in part, arose within the High Court's territory. The Court held that incidental or remote facts, such as reading an advertisement, filing a tender, sending correspondence, or receiving a fax at one location, do not by themselves form an integral part of the cause of action where the tender was to be scrutinised and rejected elsewhere. On the facts stated, no part of the cause of action arose within the Calcutta High Court's jurisdiction, so the writ petition there was not maintainable. en-us Thu, 23 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jun 2025 16:57:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154760 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether the pleaded facts show that the cause of action, wholly or in part, arose within the High Court's territory. The Court held that incidental or remote facts, such as reading an advertisement, filing a tender, sending correspondence, or receiving a fax at one location, do not by themselves form an integral part of the cause of action where the tender was to be scrutinised and rejected elsewhere. On the facts stated, no part of the cause of action arose within the Calcutta High Court's jurisdiction, so the writ petition there was not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 23 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154760