Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 766 (0.04 seconds)
Documents citing Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu on 23 June, 1994

Manish Kumar Mishra vs Union Of India And 4 Ors. on 1 May, 2020

This Court by setting aside the order passed by the Calcutta High Court came to the following conclusion: (Utpal Kumar Basu case, SCC p. 717, para 6) "6. Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. Therefore, the question whether in the instant case the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition in question even on the facts alleged must depend upon whether the averments made in paras 5, 7, 18, 22, 26 and 43 are sufficient in law to establish that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court."
Allahabad High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Shyam Kishore & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 10 May, 2013

In  "Oil and Natural Gas Commission" Vs. Utpal Kumar   Basu & Ors.", reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711, the Hon'ble Supreme  Court   held   that,   when   the   Head   Office   of   the   ONGC   was   not  located at Calcutta, nor the contract was to be carried out in West  Bengal,   territorial   jurisdiction   cannot   be   conferred   on   the   High  Court   of   Calcutta   on   the   ground   that   an   advertisement   had  appeared   in   a   daily   newspaper,   published   from   Calcutta,   or  because   the   petitioner   had   submitted   his   bid   from   Calcutta,   or  because  subsequent  representations  were  made  from  Calcutta  or  because the final decision taken by ONGC was received at Calcutta  inasmuch as none of these would constitute an 'integral part' of the  'cause of action' so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the High  Court of Calcutta under Article 226 (2) of the Constitution.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 1 - S Chandrashekhar - Full Document

M.S. Associates vs Uoi on 22 March, 2005

In the light of what is indicated by the Apex Court in Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711 and Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra (20001) 7SCC 640, any controversy in a writ petition with regard to territorial jurisdiction has to be settled by the High Court on the basis of the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action without, of course, embarking upon an enquiry as to whether the facts pleaded are correct or not. Taking note of this position of law and also bearing in mind as to what cause of action means, when we look into i.e. pleadings in the writ petition, we find that the clear averments of the writ petitioner are that the search and seizure operations had been conducted in the office premises of the petitioner firm situated at Gauhati and Tinsukia, though warrants of authorisation had been issued in the names of certain individuals, namely, M.K Subba, A.K Subba and S.R. Subba and that various documents and books of account relating to the petitioner firm were seized and that while issuing warrant of authorisation, respondent No. 5, namely, DIT (Investigation), Gauhati, had no material to form a belief about the existence of the situations warranting recourse to section 132(1). To these averments, the respondents reacted by claiming that the action was taken by respondent No. 5 in concert with the DIT (Investigation), New Delhi, and the DIT (Investigation), Calcutta, on the basis of shared information. These averments clearly show that respondent No. 5, even according to the case of the respondents, had acted on the basis of the information, which had been shared with him by the DIT (Investigation), New Delhi, and the DIT (Investigation), Calcutta, and it was his satisfaction derived on the basis of the information so received that he issued the war-rant of authorisation leading to the said search and seizure.
Gauhati High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 2 - I Ansari - Full Document

Dr.Nawal Kishore Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 10 May, 2013

In  "Oil and Natural Gas Commission" Vs. Utpal Kumar   Basu & Ors.", reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711, the Hon'ble Supreme  Court   held   that,   when   the   Head   Office   of   the   ONGC   was   not  located at Calcutta, nor the contract was to be carried out in West  Bengal,   territorial   jurisdiction   cannot   be   conferred   on   the   High  Court   of   Calcutta   on   the   ground   that   an   advertisement   had  appeared   in   a   daily   newspaper,   published   from   Calcutta,   or  because   the   petitioner   had   submitted   his   bid   from   Calcutta,   or  because  subsequent  representations  were  made  from  Calcutta  or  because the final decision taken by ONGC was received at Calcutta  inasmuch as none of these would constitute an 'integral part' of the  'cause of action' so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the High  Court of Calcutta under Article 226 (2) of the Constitution.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 4 - S Chandrashekhar - Full Document

Shri Asif S/O Shaukat Qureshi vs The State Of Maha., Through Secretary, ... on 22 December, 2016

Judgment 10 wp4343.16 In the case referred at (iv) above decision in Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar (supra) was followed and in Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra) was distinguished as in the said petition amongst other reliefs a Writ of Mandamus to the State of Meghalaya to transfer the investigation to Mumbai Police and also allegations of malafides were made as to the filing of the complaint at Shillong. It was observed that prayers in the writ petition gave raise to cause of action to move the High Court at Bombay for the relief and not before the Gujrat High Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

G. Rangaraj vs The Commandant, Cisf Unit, Rsp - ... on 8 December, 2000

After considering the matter in detail, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and after holding that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case of the petitioner, I have dismissed the said writ petition. The judgment of mine referred to above is squarely applicable to the facts of the present cases.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Millipore India Private Ltd. vs Government Of India And Ors. on 29 January, 2002

In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Uptal Kumar Basu case there was no cause of action either in part or in whole that arose in the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. It was in those circumstances, the Court ruled that the Calcutta High Court lacks territorial Jurisdiction. That is not the case in the case on hand. A part of cause of action has occurred in this State and therefore, it cannot be said that this Court lacks absolute jurisdiction warranting rejection on the ground of want of jurisdiction by this Court. On facts, this Court holds that part of cause of action has occurred and that the petition is maintainable in this Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R Gururajan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next