Advocates:
Bhabesh Narayan Bose - for Petitioner.
Manindra Nath Ghose and Sachindra Chandra Dass Gupta - for Opposite Party.

Key Points: - The court held that no part of the cause of action arose within the Sealdah jurisdiction and that the Sealdah Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. (!) (!) - The cause of action identified as (1) entrustment of goods to the Railway Administration and (2) short delivery; the court concluded no part of these arose within Sealdah. (!) (!) - Reliance on the notification of 27 May 1948 to establish territorial jurisdiction was rejected because the notification did not show that the Railway Administration undertook to pay within Sealdah, nor did it constitute a statutory obligation; the notification could not form part of the cause of action. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Respondent’s argument referencing Explanation 2 to S. 20, Civil P.C. was discussed but distinguished since Dominion of India is not a Corporation and no part of the cause of action arose in Sealdah. (!) (!) - The rule was made absolute, setting aside the Sealdah Court’s order and holding no territorial jurisdiction. (!) (!) - The Khulna Court’s jurisdictional ruling and related issues were not required to be decided for this application; the principal question was lack of arising cause of action within Sealdah. (!) (!)

What is the principle for territorial jurisdiction under S. 115, Civil P.C. as applied in this case?

What are the conclusions regarding whether any part of the cause of action arose within the Sealdah Court's territorial limits?

What is the effect of the East Indian Railway notification of 27 May 1948 on the cause of action and territorial jurisdiction?