https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199972 Article 226 territorial jurisdiction in a habeas corpus challenge turns on where a sufficient cause of action arises, not merely on the petitioner's residence. A relative's residence in Vidarbha by itself was treated as insufficient, while the place of detention was recognised as relevant to cause of action. The constitutional power under Article 226 was distinguished from local territorial rules under the Bombay Reorganisation Act and the Appellate Side Rules, which regulate exercise of jurisdiction but do not curtail that constitutional power. The preliminary objection was upheld, the Nagpur Bench was held to lack jurisdiction, and the matter was directed to be transmitted to the Bombay Bench. en-us Wed, 19 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Mar 2018 10:52:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199972 Article 226 territorial jurisdiction in a habeas corpus challenge turns on where a sufficient cause of action arises, not merely on the petitioner's residence. A relative's residence in Vidarbha by itself was treated as insufficient, while the place of detention was recognised as relevant to cause of action. The constitutional power under Article 226 was distinguished from local territorial rules under the Bombay Reorganisation Act and the Appellate Side Rules, which regulate exercise of jurisdiction but do not curtail that constitutional power. The preliminary objection was upheld, the Nagpur Bench was held to lack jurisdiction, and the matter was directed to be transmitted to the Bombay Bench. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 19 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199972