TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued by the respondent to the petitioner pending disposal of the BIFR proceedings. 2. Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the writ petition filed as against the respondent, namely, "The Union of India" represented by the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, R.No.307, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi - 110 092, is not maintainable before this Court for the reason that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed as against the respondent. 3. Mr.P.S.Raman, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is having its office at Chennai and that it is deducting TDS at Chennai, therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories." 16. It is clear from the above constitutional provision that a High Court can exercise the jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. This provision in the Constitution has come up for consideration in a number of cases before this Court. In this regard, it would suffice for us to refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu [1994 (4) SCC 711] (SCC at p.713) wherein it was held: "Under Article 226 a High Court can exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondents from Ahmedabad have also no connection whatsoever with the actions of the appellants impugned in the application. The non-granting and denial of credit in the passbook having an ultimate effect, if any, on the business of the respondents at Ahmedabad would not also, in our opinion, give rise to any such cause of action to a court at Ahmedabad to adjudicate on the actions complained against the appellants." (iii)2004 (6) SCC 254 [Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and another], wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows: "30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Delhi High Court held as follows: "5. In State of Rajasthan vs. Swaika Properties AIR 1985 SC 1289, their Lordships have held that the cause of action is a bundle of facts which would give the plaintiff a right to relief. Reference may also be had to U.P.Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad vs. State of U.P.(1995) 4 SCC 738. Any and every fact, though relevant, would not necessarily be included in the bundle of essential facts constituting cause of action. We are clearly of the opinion that so far as the impugned orders of the IT authorities situated within the State of Haryana are concerned, no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi." 5. On a careful consideration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. Similarly under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, a suit can be instituted where the defendants reside or cause of action arises. Under Section 20(b) every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually or voluntarily resides, or carries on ....