https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196854 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether a material part of the cause of action arose within the Court's limits, and mere residence of the petitioner, sending a representation from Madras, or receipt of the rejection order there was insufficient to establish that nexus. The detenu was apprehended, detained, and served with the rejection order at Calcutta, and the record did not show ordinary residence in Tamil Nadu or other sufficient local connection. The Madras High Court therefore held that the writ petition was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction and upheld the jurisdictional objection. en-us Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Dec 2017 17:31:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196854 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether a material part of the cause of action arose within the Court's limits, and mere residence of the petitioner, sending a representation from Madras, or receipt of the rejection order there was insufficient to establish that nexus. The detenu was apprehended, detained, and served with the rejection order at Calcutta, and the record did not show ordinary residence in Tamil Nadu or other sufficient local connection. The Madras High Court therefore held that the writ petition was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction and upheld the jurisdictional objection. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196854