https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196857 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1A) existed where material facts forming part of the cause of action arose within the State, even though the detention orders were signed and served outside Gujarat. The detenus' residence and business were in Gujarat, their earlier detention had commenced at Baroda, and the impugned orders continued restraint on their liberty, movement, residence, and business within the State. Article 19 was relevant only incidentally to identify the rights affected and could be considered for the limited jurisdictional inquiry. The writ petitions were therefore maintainable in the High Court. en-us Thu, 27 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Dec 2017 17:46:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196857 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1A) existed where material facts forming part of the cause of action arose within the State, even though the detention orders were signed and served outside Gujarat. The detenus' residence and business were in Gujarat, their earlier detention had commenced at Baroda, and the impugned orders continued restraint on their liberty, movement, residence, and business within the State. Article 19 was relevant only incidentally to identify the rights affected and could be considered for the limited jurisdictional inquiry. The writ petitions were therefore maintainable in the High Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196857