K.T.THOMAS, D.P.MOHAPATRA
Navinchandra N. Majithia – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Thomas, J.—I respectfully agree with the Judgment prepared by my learned brother Mohapatra, J. In view of the importance of the legal issue highlighted before us - regarding the extent of jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - I am tempted to add a few lines of my own for a further support to the conclusion reached by my learned brother.
2. As the facts of the case have been succinctly narrated by Mohapatra, J., I shall set out only the main issue involved. Whether the High Court of Bombay has jurisdiction to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to in respect of any step taken or to be taken pursuant to the FIR registered by the Shillong police in the State of Meghalaya. The Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants solely on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The Division Bench has observed thus :
“Petitioner cannot content that a part of the cause of action arose within the limits of this Court as Bombay Police sought to interrogate him. The investigation is not the cause of action. The investigation is only the consequence of the FIR filed by the 4th respondent bef
Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao
Mohd. Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian
State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Anr.
K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another
Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another
H.V. Jayaram v. Industrial Credit & Investment Corpn. of India Ltd. and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.