https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187569 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on whether a material part of the cause of action arises within the High Court's limits. Mere existence of the petitioner's Chennai office and deduction of TDS at Chennai were insufficient, because the impugned order was issued at New Delhi, the relevant records and returns were maintained there, and the respondent had no actionable role in Chennai. On those facts, Chennai did not supply any substantive cause of action, and the High Court found that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. en-us Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:39:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187569 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on whether a material part of the cause of action arises within the High Court's limits. Mere existence of the petitioner's Chennai office and deduction of TDS at Chennai were insufficient, because the impugned order was issued at New Delhi, the relevant records and returns were maintained there, and the respondent had no actionable role in Chennai. On those facts, Chennai did not supply any substantive cause of action, and the High Court found that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187569