https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312014 The HC concluded that the petitioner, a Junior Warrant Officer, could not invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 against an authority located outside the State because no part of the cause of action arose within the State where the Court is located. The Court emphasized that the cause of action must arise within its territorial limits for jurisdiction to be established. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of territorial connection in jurisdictional matters under Article 226. en-us Thu, 10 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:33:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312014 The HC concluded that the petitioner, a Junior Warrant Officer, could not invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 against an authority located outside the State because no part of the cause of action arose within the State where the Court is located. The Court emphasized that the cause of action must arise within its territorial limits for jurisdiction to be established. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of territorial connection in jurisdictional matters under Article 226. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312014