https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162500 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 in criminal matters depends on whether the facts relied on form an integral part of the cause of action; incidental facts such as a party's office location or receipt of cheques are insufficient. For a challenge to a complaint and cognizance order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the relevant jurisdiction ordinarily follows the place where the offence arose, consistent with Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the admitted facts, the transaction, dishonoured cheques and alleged liability were rooted in West Bengal, and the Kerala-linked averments did not establish a real cause of action. The Kerala High Court therefore lacked territorial jurisdiction, and the writ challenge could not be maintained there. en-us Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:58:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162500 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 in criminal matters depends on whether the facts relied on form an integral part of the cause of action; incidental facts such as a party's office location or receipt of cheques are insufficient. For a challenge to a complaint and cognizance order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the relevant jurisdiction ordinarily follows the place where the offence arose, consistent with Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the admitted facts, the transaction, dishonoured cheques and alleged liability were rooted in West Bengal, and the Kerala-linked averments did not establish a real cause of action. The Kerala High Court therefore lacked territorial jurisdiction, and the writ challenge could not be maintained there. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162500