https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311333 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether the facts relied on are material, integral, and essential to the cause of action for the relief claimed. Mere receipt or service of a communication within the court's limits does not by itself confer jurisdiction unless that fact must be pleaded and proved for the writ. Here, the arbitrator was appointed at New Delhi and the arbitral orders were made at Mumbai; the petitioners' receipt in Kolkata of the appointment letter and later communications was only informational and not an essential part of the challenge. The High Court therefore held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction and the writ petition was not maintainable. en-us Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Dec 2023 16:40:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311333 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether the facts relied on are material, integral, and essential to the cause of action for the relief claimed. Mere receipt or service of a communication within the court's limits does not by itself confer jurisdiction unless that fact must be pleaded and proved for the writ. Here, the arbitrator was appointed at New Delhi and the arbitral orders were made at Mumbai; the petitioners' receipt in Kolkata of the appointment letter and later communications was only informational and not an essential part of the challenge. The High Court therefore held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction and the writ petition was not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311333