https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275873 Territorial jurisdiction for a writ challenging refusal of permission to alienate trust property turned on where the impugned order under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was passed, not merely on the location of the trust properties. Because the permission was sought and refused at Pune, a material part of the cause of action arose within the Principal Seat's ordinary territorial jurisdiction. The High Court's writ jurisdiction remains co-extensive with the State, while the Appellate Side Rules govern presentation for administrative convenience and do not cut down constitutional jurisdiction. Forum conveniens may justify transfer in a proper case, but it does not negate jurisdiction. The territorial objection was rejected and the return applications were dismissed. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:29:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275873 Territorial jurisdiction for a writ challenging refusal of permission to alienate trust property turned on where the impugned order under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was passed, not merely on the location of the trust properties. Because the permission was sought and refused at Pune, a material part of the cause of action arose within the Principal Seat's ordinary territorial jurisdiction. The High Court's writ jurisdiction remains co-extensive with the State, while the Appellate Side Rules govern presentation for administrative convenience and do not cut down constitutional jurisdiction. Forum conveniens may justify transfer in a proper case, but it does not negate jurisdiction. The territorial objection was rejected and the return applications were dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275873