Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Bajrangbali Coal Company vs Coal Controller And Ors. on 29 June, 1998
In Everest Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Coal Controller and Ors. 90 CWN 438, the Division Bench has held "In order to maintain a writ application, the petitioner has to establish that within the territorial limit of the Courts jurisdiction prima facie a legal right claimed by him has been either infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondents. Such infringement may take place by causing him legal injury or threat thereof. Accordingly, when the impugned act of the respondent takes effect within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court, the Court may entertain the writ petition of the person aggrieved notwithstanding that the respondents have the offices or residences outside its territorial jurisdiction. An order which has been made by an authoirty or person at a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court but is given effect to against the petitioner within the said High Court's jurisdiction gives rise to at least a part of cause of action at the place where it is implemented. When an order becomes effectively only when it is communicated or served, the service of the order or receipt of a notice thereof would form part of cause of action for filing a writ petition by the person aggrieved thereby."
Satya Prakash vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 14 March, 2000
9. Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. and Ors , was a case arising out of the order of this Court refusing to entertain the appellant's application with the prayer that a direction be given to an independent agency to inquire into the matter on the ground that the Delhi High Court had no territorial jurisdiction. The alleged offence, if any, was committed outside the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. In the petition under Article 32, the Supreme Court while dismissing the petition observed that the dismissal will not preclude the petitioner form moving the appropriate Court including the High Court of Delhi, if so advised. Because of this observation of the Supreme Court, the appellant moved the Delhi High Court but this petition was also dismissed. It was contend that the orders of the Supreme Court must be construed as a mandamus from the Supreme Court to the Delhi High Court conferring jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court to entertain and dispose of the matter on merits. When the matter was again taken to the Supreme Court, their Lordships held that "We are unable to construe the aforesaid two orders passed by the Court conferring jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court to entertain the matter over which it does not possess any territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as the offence was, admittedly, committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. " In that view of the matter, the Court declined to interfere with the order of the Delhi High Court and observed that the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Allahabad High Court, if so advised.
Ram Kirpal Chhakkar And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... on 12 April, 1955
10. A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ram Kirpal Chakkar and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. observed that one important circumstance is that the Courts do not issue writs and injunctions which they have no power to enforce. If a writ or injunction is disobeyed, the only way to enforce it is to take proceedings against the guilty party for disobedience of the order. If that party is outside the jurisdiction of the Court, then the Court has no power to enforce obedience of the injunction or writ issued by the Court. The Courts, therefore, do no issue writs where they have no power to enforce their obedience. If a writ is issued to some Officer at New Delhi and he ignores it, the Allahabad High Court cannot proceed in contempt against such Officer, as he is outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
Ebrahim Aboobaker And Anr. vs L. Achhru Ram on 24 May, 1951
12. A Division Bench of Punjab High Court in Ebrahim Aboobaker and Anr. v. Achhru Ram came to the conclusion that the High Court has no power or authority to issue writ to a person or an authority not within its jurisdiction.
Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of ... on 27 February, 1953
In Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao the Apex Court held that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. Secondly, the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue writs must be within those territories which clearly implies that they must be amenable to the jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Swaika Properties & Anr on 8 April, 1985
In State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Swaika Properties and Anr. , the court observed:
Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 6 October, 1993
23.It is abundantly clear that a trivial or insignificant part of the cause of actin arising at a particular place would not be enough to confer writ jurisdiction. It is the cause of action mainly and substantially arising at a place which would be determining factor of territorial jurisdiction as observed by our Division Bench in Sector Twenty-one owners Welfare Association (supra). While exercising the jurisdiction it shall have to be kept in view who are the real persons or authorities sought to be proceeded against or against whom writ be issued by the Court. We are in respectful agreement with the proposition of law laid down by their Lordships.