AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 126 ::2001 AIR SCW 4690 ::(2001) 134 ELT 596 ::(2002) 2 GCD 1292 (SC) ::2002 (1) UJ (SC) 261 ::2002 (1) SCC 567 ::(2001) 8 Scale 72 ::(2001) 7 Scale 575 ::(2002) 1 AllMR 666 (SC) ::2002 (1) Andh LD 104 ::2002 (4) GujLR 2830 ::(2001) 4 CTC 629 (SC) ::2001 (4) CTC 629 ::(2002) 1 Guj LH 520 ::2001 (8) Supreme 48 ::(2001) 9 JT 318 (SC) ::2001 (9) JT 318

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Gujarat)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): N. Santosh Hegde, Ashok Bhan , JJ

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.20— Territorial jurisdiction - Existence of registered office of a company within territorial jurisdiction of Court - Does not ipso facto give a cause of action to that Court. Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Explained. (Para 10 11) (B) Constitution of India , Art.226— Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.20— Territorial jurisdiction - Cause of action - Place of accrual - Determination - All facts pleaded do not give rise to cause action - For that fact pleaded must have relevance to the lis/dispute. In order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the Court to decide a dispute which has, at least in-part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear that each and every fact pleaded in the application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with....