https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289336 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1A) was upheld because service of the effective orders at the petitioner's Calcutta address formed part of the cause of action, defeating the objection that the respondents were outside the Court's reach. The revocation of the mining grant was treated as void for breach of natural justice because it was made without a reasonable opportunity to show cause, although communication of the substance of the order was held sufficient. Relief was nevertheless barred because the revocation had merged in an unchallenged revisional order of the Central Government. The grant also stood revoked by operation of Rule 28A, as the lease had not been executed within the prescribed time. en-us Fri, 26 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jul 2020 12:31:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289336 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1A) was upheld because service of the effective orders at the petitioner's Calcutta address formed part of the cause of action, defeating the objection that the respondents were outside the Court's reach. The revocation of the mining grant was treated as void for breach of natural justice because it was made without a reasonable opportunity to show cause, although communication of the substance of the order was held sufficient. Relief was nevertheless barred because the revocation had merged in an unchallenged revisional order of the Central Government. The grant also stood revoked by operation of Rule 28A, as the lease had not been executed within the prescribed time. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 26 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289336