Back
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Durgapur Freight Terminal Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Ministry of Railways – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. In the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed letter dated 09.12.2022 issued by respondent No.5 to respondent No.6 and sought directions to respondent Nos.1 to 5 not to interfere in their operation and management of a Private Freight Terminal at Banful Sarani, Sagarbhanga, Durgapur, West Bengal (hereinafter, `Durgapur PFT').
2. Petitioner No.1 is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing logistic services and petitioner No.2 is its director. Respondent No.1 is the Union of India represented through the Ministry of Railways. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are functionaries of the Railway Board, Delhi. Respondent No.5 is the Executive Director (RM) & CFTM/ER, Railway Board, Kolkata. Respondent No.6 is M/s Palogix Infrastructure Private Limited (hereinafter, `Palogix'), a private company engaged in the business of rendering logistic services as well as developing and operating Railways Private Freight Terminals.
3. The petitioners claim to have been managing and operating Durgapur PFT pursuant to a resolution plan approved by NCLT, Kolkata Bench, vide order dated 12.02.2018 passed
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location of the cause of action, and internal correspondence between zonal offices a....
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of forum conveniens in determining the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitu....
High Courts' jurisdiction under Article 226 is contingent on cause of action arising within its territory, not merely on the location of the authority or relevant government.
The doctrine of forum conveniens limits jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing that a court should not entertain cases where a more appropriate forum exists, regardless of where a part of the ca....
A High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226(2) requires that part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.
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 the interpretation of 'cause of action' and the concept of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to the notice....
High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 is contingent upon the presence of a cause of action within its territorial limits, as clarified by recent rulings.
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
