https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463524 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 exists where the pleaded facts show a direct nexus with the relief sought and a part of the cause of action arises within the court's territory; on that basis, Delhi was held to have jurisdiction because the employer's Delhi office, the common Internal Complaints Committee, and the alleged coercion in Delhi formed part of the cause of action. The Internal Complaints Committee was also found to be invalidly constituted because the external member did not meet the statutory qualification under the sexual harassment law, and Rule 4 was treated as applicable only to the Local Complaints Committee. Its proceedings and report were therefore set aside, and the inquiry had to be conducted afresh by a properly reconstituted committee. en-us Wed, 30 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Sep 2025 10:55:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463524 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 exists where the pleaded facts show a direct nexus with the relief sought and a part of the cause of action arises within the court's territory; on that basis, Delhi was held to have jurisdiction because the employer's Delhi office, the common Internal Complaints Committee, and the alleged coercion in Delhi formed part of the cause of action. The Internal Complaints Committee was also found to be invalidly constituted because the external member did not meet the statutory qualification under the sexual harassment law, and Rule 4 was treated as applicable only to the Local Complaints Committee. Its proceedings and report were therefore set aside, and the inquiry had to be conducted afresh by a properly reconstituted committee. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463524