Key Points: - The Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad lacked territorial jurisdiction since no part of the cause of action arose there; the matter should be transferred to the Madras High Court for disposal (Paras 17-21) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Article 226(2) enables a High Court to exercise jurisdiction where the cause of action partly or wholly arises, and the court must examine the entire pleaded facts to determine nexus to the lis (Paras 15-18, 28) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The case discusses Oswal Woollen Mills and ONGC precedents to illustrate that merely having a registered office or other incidental factors do not automatically confer jurisdiction; a nexus with the lis is required (Paras 9-12, 19-21, 26-27) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Supreme Court directed that Special Civil Applications Nos. 3282/99 and 3279/99 be transferred to the High Court of Madras at Chennai and that the Ahmedabad proceedings be disposed of by the Madras Bench, with expedited handling due to prior litigation (Paras 20-21) (!) (!) - The Pass Book Scheme and Import Export Policy matter concerns entitlement to credits under the scheme, with the key jurisdictional issue central to the petition rather than merits (initial context in references 1-4) (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the territorial jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court under Article 226(2) in relation to the Pass Book Scheme and whether the case should be transferred to Madras High Court?

What is the correct test for establishing territorial jurisdiction for writ petitions under Article 226(2) and CPC Order XIV Rule 2, based on the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action?

What are the appellate court’s directions regarding transfer of Special Civil Applications to the High Court of Madras and the handling of proceedings in the Ahmedabad High Court?