Back
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Binode Chandra Bairagi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from acting upon the order of dismissal dated 8th July, 1997 and the appellate order signed on 18th November, 2002 and for direction upon the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service as Naik (BSF) with full back wages.
2. Ms. Chandreyi Alam, learned advocate for the respondent authorities raises an objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. She submits that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and therefore, this Court should not try and decide this writ petition.
3. Mr. Samanta, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner disputes such submission by contending that on an earlier occasion, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. 4322(W) of 2000 praying for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 15th April, 1996 and this Hon’ble Court by an order dated 17th July, 2002 allowed the prayer of the writ petitioner to withdraw the said writ petit
Territorial jurisdiction of the court is determined based on the material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action, and consent cannot confer jurisdiction upon the court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish territorial jurisdiction for maintaining a writ petition, based on the principles of cause of action and the location ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction, as defined in....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere communication of correspondence and orders does not give rise to a cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place where the order is made and where the consequences fall on the person concerned. Forum conveniences should be considered, especially for retired em....
Point of Law : Territorial jurisdiction - Prior to Constitutional (Fifteenth Amendment Act, 1963, concept of cause of action was alien for adjudication of disputes by High Court under Article 226 of ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Consti....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
