1994 (10) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irst respondent culminating in an order of confirmation of sale under Reference No. TRO/OS/661/76-77/90-91 dated December 3, 1990 of the first respondent and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this court may deem fit and proper. . . " The proceedings under challenge are those of the first respondent-Tax Recovery Officer, outstation charge, Bombay, and is the proclamation of sale issued under rule 38 and rule 52(2) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proclamation of sale purports to bring an immovable property, viz., Flat No. 43, 9th floor, in Prabhat Suprabhat CHS Ltd., 76-B, Esai Road, Bombay-400 026, more fully described in the schedule of property annexed to the proclamation of sale. This court, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories." It is made very clear that notwithstanding that the seat of Government or authority or the residence of a person against whom the relief is sought for is not within the territorial limits of a High Court, the powers conferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised by any High Court in relation to the territories within which the cause of action wholly or in part arises for the exercise of such power. The factual position noticed supra about the nature of the proceedings under challenge, the authority who has issued such proceedings and th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he point and it has been held by the Supreme Court in the said decision that the mere service in the State of West Bengal of notice under section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act (35 of 1959) on the owner of land situated in the State of Rajasthan intimating the State Government's proposal to acquire that land for public purpose does not constitute an integral part of the cause of action sufficient to invest the Calcutta High Court with jurisdiction to entertain a petition under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notification acquiring the land. Cause of action has been held to be a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the person concerned a right to relief against the ot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X