-
by Admin
07 April 2026 6:31 PM
In a significant ruling on territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court has held that mere receipt of notices in Bengaluru cannot confer jurisdiction when the entire cause of action arises outside its territory. Dismissing three writ petitions filed by the Directors of Digital Network India Ltd., the Division Bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Umesh M. Adiga ruled that the Karnataka High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions against orders passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), New Delhi, particularly in execution proceedings.
The Court held in its judgment dated 17 October 2025 that, “the notices issued to the petitioners would not be an integral part of the cause of action which can legitimately enable them to approach this High Court rather than the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi.” The ruling reaffirms that “forum conveniens” and the situs of adjudicatory acts remain critical in determining territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2).
“A Small Fraction of Cause of Action Must Be Material, Not Illusory”: High Court Applies Kusum Ingots Doctrine with Caution
The case stemmed from a TDSAT execution order dated 01.09.2022 arising from a final decree passed in Broadcasting Petition No. 499/2015, where Discovery Communications India secured a decree of ₹59.82 lakhs plus interest against Digital Network India Ltd. In execution proceedings, the TDSAT directed that notices be issued to all current and former Directors of the company, and also invoked powers under Order XXI Rule 41(3) read with Section 55 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, directing civil imprisonment for one Director, later postponed.
Challenging this coercive order, the petitioners approached the Karnataka High Court under Article 226, contending that since notices for personal appearance were served upon them in Bengaluru, a “part of the cause of action” arose within Karnataka, conferring jurisdiction.
Rejecting this submission, the High Court distinguished between mere consequential service of notice and material acts giving rise to legal injury. Citing the Supreme Court’s binding ruling in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254, the Court observed:
"The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action."
Reiterating this principle, the Bench concluded that the “receipt of notice in Bengaluru is not a material fact” since the impugned order was passed entirely in New Delhi, by a tribunal based in New Delhi, in a matter litigated and contested before that tribunal in New Delhi.
“When Tribunal Is Located in Delhi and Order Is Passed There, Only Delhi High Court Has Jurisdiction”: Karnataka HC Declines to Interfere
The Court gave detailed reasoning on why it lacks jurisdiction:
The TDSAT is seated in New Delhi, and the challenged order of 01.09.2022 was passed there.
The entire proceedings including evidence submission and appearances were made before TDSAT, New Delhi. The company had contested the original Broadcasting Petition and was fully heard.
The execution was initiated in New Delhi under the powers of TDSAT under Section 19 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, which allows the tribunal to execute its orders as a civil court.
The only claimed link to Karnataka was the service of notice, which, the Court held, did not constitute an integral fact of the cause of action.
In a crucial finding, the Court held:
"The Company and its Director had submitted themselves to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi."
Therefore, the Karnataka High Court could not assume jurisdiction merely because the petitioners received notices in Bengaluru. It stressed that “jurisdiction is not a matter of convenience but of law”, and the correct forum for such a challenge lies in the Delhi High Court.
“Execution Orders and Director Liability Cannot Be Short-Circuited via Article 226”: High Court Refuses to Entertain Corporate Veil Argument
Apart from jurisdiction, the petitioners had also argued that they were not parties to the original proceedings and could not be held personally liable for the decree without the corporate veil being lifted. The Court, however, held that such questions must be adjudicated within the execution jurisdiction of the TDSAT itself, or through appellate remedies.
"Determination of such issues lies within execution jurisdiction of TDSAT. A writ under Article 226 cannot bypass this statutory mechanism," the Court held in para 6.
By doing so, the Court underscored the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to circumvent the procedural rights and liabilities under the Civil Procedure Code.
“Jurisdiction Lies Not Where Notices Are Received, But Where Orders Are Passed”: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions
Summarising its legal conclusions, the Court held that no part of the real cause of action arose within Karnataka, and therefore the writ petitions were not maintainable. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the Delhi High Court.
In dismissing the petitions, the Court invoked the principle of forum conveniens, citing Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Shanti Devi v. Union of India to reaffirm that jurisdiction does not automatically vest merely upon geographical consequences of legal process.
"The writ petition would lie within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi… The petition is therefore, dismissed," the Bench concluded.
Judgment Reasserts Limits of Article 226 in National Tribunals and Execution Jurisdiction
This decision marks an important reaffirmation of territorial restraint under Article 226 and the need for parties to approach the correct High Court when challenging orders of national tribunals like the TDSAT. It also underlines that execution orders, even when coercive, must be challenged through appropriate procedural mechanisms, and not via writs that seek to sidestep statutory processes.
By holding that service of notice in one state does not amount to cause of action, the Karnataka High Court aligns with the jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots, Om Prakash Srivastava, and Nawal Kishore Sharma, ensuring consistency in territorial jurisdiction principles across the Indian judiciary.
Date of Decision: 17 October 2025
