https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46818 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on where the integral facts giving rise to the impugned action occurred. In a challenge to customs seizure and confiscation, the relevant cause of action arose from interception and seizure of the goods, the confiscation order, and service of that order, all at Ahmedabad. Purchase of the television at Madras and its despatch from Madras were not integral parts of the cause of action for the customs action. On that basis, no part of the cause of action arose within Madras, and the writ petition was not maintainable in the Madras High Court. en-us Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jan 2016 11:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46818 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on where the integral facts giving rise to the impugned action occurred. In a challenge to customs seizure and confiscation, the relevant cause of action arose from interception and seizure of the goods, the confiscation order, and service of that order, all at Ahmedabad. Purchase of the television at Madras and its despatch from Madras were not integral parts of the cause of action for the customs action. On that basis, no part of the cause of action arose within Madras, and the writ petition was not maintainable in the Madras High Court. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46818