<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (1) TMI 1395 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309854</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction to challenge a transfer order under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act depends on the location of the tribunal Bench that passed the transfer order, not on the original cause of action for the underlying service dispute. The cause of action for filing the original application under Section 19 is distinct from the cause of action arising from the transfer order itself. The broader Article 226(2) cause-of-action test cannot displace the constitutional rule governing scrutiny of tribunal decisions. Accordingly, the High Court at Calcutta lacked jurisdiction; the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the challenge open before the proper High Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=727077" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 1395 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309854</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction to challenge a transfer order under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act depends on the location of the tribunal Bench that passed the transfer order, not on the original cause of action for the underlying service dispute. The cause of action for filing the original application under Section 19 is distinct from the cause of action arising from the transfer order itself. The broader Article 226(2) cause-of-action test cannot displace the constitutional rule governing scrutiny of tribunal decisions. Accordingly, the High Court at Calcutta lacked jurisdiction; the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the challenge open before the proper High Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309854</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>