Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of ... on 27 February, 1953
The view as taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao (supra) has been approved and reiterated again in the case of Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, and it has been observed that it was not permissible to read in Article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed, in order to determine the jurisdiction of the Court and such jurisdiction depends on the person or authority passing the order being within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The provision as to ci. (1-A) of Article 226(1) was inserted in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court as mentioned above and now the location of the subject-matter or the parties to the controversy is immaterial for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226(1). Still then, the cause of action or any part thereof should arise or accrue within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court concerned,
K.S. Rashid And Son vs The Income-Tax Investigation ... on 22 January, 1954
13. It is true that Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (15th Amendment) Act, 1963, whereby Clause (1-A) to Article 226(1) was incorporated and such incorporation has enlarged the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in writ matters, so as to include places within which the cause of action has arisen. Previously, the jurisdiction was limited to places within which the authorities against whom the writs were issued, were located. Thus, on a reading of Article 226(1), twofold limitations of the jurisdiction of the High Court would be apparent viz., the power is to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction, which means that writs issued by the High Court could not go beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction and (2) the person or authority, to whom the writs are issued, must be within the territories subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court, which means that such persons or authority, must be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court, either by residence or location of records within those territories. The above rule has been evolved from the determination starting from the case of K. S. Rashid & Sons v. Income-tax Investigation Commission, and followed thereafter.
Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh vs The Union Of India & Another on 5 December, 1960
The view as taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao (supra) has been approved and reiterated again in the case of Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, and it has been observed that it was not permissible to read in Article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed, in order to determine the jurisdiction of the Court and such jurisdiction depends on the person or authority passing the order being within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The provision as to ci. (1-A) of Article 226(1) was inserted in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court as mentioned above and now the location of the subject-matter or the parties to the controversy is immaterial for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226(1). Still then, the cause of action or any part thereof should arise or accrue within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court concerned,
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1