https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184289 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on whether an integral and material part of the cause of action arose within the Court's limits. Mere receipt at a petitioner's Calcutta office of a communication rejecting a non-statutory representation did not, by itself, create jurisdiction where the impugned approvals operated outside the Court's territory and the pleadings showed no legally relevant effect within Calcutta. The objection to territorial jurisdiction was not waived because the respondents raised it at the threshold and their limited procedural participation did not amount to submission on the merits or acquiescence. en-us Thu, 16 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2016 17:42:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184289 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on whether an integral and material part of the cause of action arose within the Court's limits. Mere receipt at a petitioner's Calcutta office of a communication rejecting a non-statutory representation did not, by itself, create jurisdiction where the impugned approvals operated outside the Court's territory and the pleadings showed no legally relevant effect within Calcutta. The objection to territorial jurisdiction was not waived because the respondents raised it at the threshold and their limited procedural participation did not amount to submission on the merits or acquiescence. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 16 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184289