https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194606 Service of a preventive detention order and taking the detenue into custody within Rajasthan constituted part of the cause of action under Article 226, because territorial jurisdiction depends on whether the cause of action arises wholly or in part within the Court's territory. In habeas corpus matters, the material facts include not only the making of the detention order but also the actual deprivation of liberty through service and execution of the order. A practical construction was preferred to avoid rendering the words "wholly or in part" ineffective. The Court also noted that any refusal to entertain a petition on convenience grounds is separate from the existence of territorial jurisdiction. en-us Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:40:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194606 Service of a preventive detention order and taking the detenue into custody within Rajasthan constituted part of the cause of action under Article 226, because territorial jurisdiction depends on whether the cause of action arises wholly or in part within the Court's territory. In habeas corpus matters, the material facts include not only the making of the detention order but also the actual deprivation of liberty through service and execution of the order. A practical construction was preferred to avoid rendering the words "wholly or in part" ineffective. The Court also noted that any refusal to entertain a petition on convenience grounds is separate from the existence of territorial jurisdiction. Case-Laws FEMA Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194606