MSIL challenged an auction notice issued by Adani Krishnapatnam Port over imported sand stored at the port for recovery of dues owed by its handling agent. The court found no part of the cause of action arose within Karnataka and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25052 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED NO. 36, MSIL HOUSE, CUNNIGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, ADVOCATE; KUM. RACHEL RAJU ALICE, ADVOCATE AND KUM. RACHEL THOMAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AUCTION NOTICE DTD. 06.08.2024 IN LETTER NO. AKPL/ MARKETING / MYSORE SALES /50/24-25 ISSUED BY THE R2 WHICH IS AT ANNX-P AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
HC-KAR
issued a global e-tender notification on 24.05.2017.
HC-KAR
was entrusted with various activities including coordination with Krishnapatnam Port, stevedoring operations, customs documentation, transportation, unloading, loading, bagging, weighbridge operations and other ancillary services connected with handling of the imported sand. It is also stated that Krishnapatnam Port had entered into an agreement dated 19.06.2017 with Vishwasamudra appointing it as the handling agent for the purpose of availing port-related services.
2.5. The dispute arose when Krishnapatnam Port alleged that substantial amounts payable by Vishwasamudra towards port charges and other dues had remained unpaid. On account thereof, Krishnapatnam Port asserted a right over the cargo lying within the port premises and initiated steps to auction the imported sand stated to be lying in its custody. Contending that it is the owner of the imported sand and that Krishnapatnam Port has no authority in law to auction the same for recovery of alleged dues payable by Vishwasamudra, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the
HC-KAR
action initiated by Krishnapatnam Port and seeking appropriate reliefs.
HC-KAR
cater to the demand for sand within the State. According to him, the obligations undertaken by Poseidon under the agreement were intended to culminate in the supply of sand to the petitioner for distribution in Karnataka, and therefore, a substantial part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
HC-KAR
tender, the agreement entered into with Poseidon, or any statutory provision governing the import and sale of sand. The dispute, according to him, is essentially between Krishnapatnam Port and Vishwasamudra regarding alleged unpaid port and handling charges. The petitioner, being neither a party to such dispute nor liable for the alleged dues, cannot be deprived of its ownership rights over the imported sand.
3.5. Learned Senior Counsel therefore contends that the proposed auction of the sand by the respondents is wholly without authority of law. He submits that the respondents cannot seek to recover any alleged dues payable by Vishwasamudra by proceeding against goods belonging to the petitioner. According to him, the proposed auction directly affects the proprietary and commercial rights of the petitioner within the State of Karnataka and consequently furnishes a part of the cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
HC-KAR
"17. We have perused the facts pleaded in the writ petition and the documents relied upon by the appellant. Indisputably, the appellant reported sickness on account of various ailments including difficulty in breathing. He was referred to hospital. Consequently, he was signed off for further medical treatment.
1 (2014) 9 SCC 329
HC-KAR
Finally, the respondent permanently declared the appellant unfit for sea service due to dilated cardiomyopathy (heart muscle disease). As a result, the Shipping Department of the Government of India issued an Order on 12-42011 cancelling the registration of the appellant as a seaman. A copy of the letter was sent to the appellant at his native place in Bihar where he was staying after he was found medically unfit. It further appears that the appellant sent a representation from his home in the State of Bihar to the respondent claiming disability compensation. The said representation was replied by the respondent, which was addressed to him on his home address in Gaya, Bihar rejecting his claim for disability compensation. It is further evident that when the appellant was signed off and declared medically unfit, he returned back to his home in the district of Gaya, Bihar and, thereafter, he made all claims and filed representation from his home address at Gaya and those letters and representations were entertained by the respondents and replied and a decision on those representations were communicated to him on his home address in Bihar. Admittedly, the appellant was suffering from serious heart muscle disease (dilated cardiomyopathy) and breathing problem which forced him to stay in his native place, wherefrom he had been making all correspondence with regard to his disability compensation. Prima facie, therefore, considering all the facts together, a part or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court where he received a letter of refusal disentitling him from disability compensation."
3.8. By relying on the decision of Nawal Kishore Sharma supra, his submission is that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
communications giving rise to a grievance are received by a person within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court and the consequences of the impugned action are suffered therein, a part of the cause of action can be said to have arisen within the jurisdiction of such High Court.
3.9. Referring to Nawal Kishore Sharma , learned Senior Counsel submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has recognised that the expression "cause of action" occurring in Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India is to receive a broad and pragmatic interpretation. According to him, even where the impugned action may have originated outside the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, if a part of the bundle of facts giving rise to the lis has arisen within such jurisdiction, the High Court would be competent to entertain the proceedings.
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
where the petitioner is situated. The tender process was initiated by the petitioner from Bengaluru, the agreement with Poseidon was executed at Bengaluru, payments were processed from Bengaluru, and communications relating to the procurement and supply of sand were exchanged with the petitioner at Bengaluru. He submits that the consequences of the impugned action are also directly felt by the petitioner at Bengaluru, where the petitioner carries on its business and where its commercial and proprietary interests are affected.
3.11. Learned Senior Counsel therefore contends that, applying the principles laid down in Nawal Kishore Sharma , both the place from which communications emanate and the place where such communications are received constitute material facts giving rise to the cause of action. Since several such events have occurred within the State of Karnataka, a substantial and integral part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
also been sent and received in Bangalore. Therefore, this Court would have jurisdiction.
"27. Tested in the light of the principles laid down in the cases noted above the judgment of the High Court under challenge is unsustainable. The High Court failed to consider all the relevant facts necessary to arrive at a proper decision on the question of maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court based its decision on the sole consideration that the complainant had filed the complaint at Shillong in the State of Meghalaya and the petitioner had prayed for quashing the said complaint. The High Court did not also consider the alternative prayer made in the writ petition that a writ of mandamus be issued to the State of Meghalaya to transfer the investigation to Mumbai Police. The High Court also did not take note of the averments in the writ petition that filing of the complaint at Shillong was a mala fide move on the part of the complainant to harass and pressurise the petitioners to reverse the transaction for transfer of shares. The relief sought in the writ petition may be one of the relevant criteria for consideration of the question but cannot be the sole consideration
2 (2000)7 SCC 640
HC-KAR
in the matter. On the averments made in the writ petition gist of which has been noted earlier it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court."
3.16. By relying on Navinchandran N. Majithia's
case, his submission is that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while considering the question of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is required to examine the entirety of the facts pleaded and the nature of the relief sought. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the place where the impugned proceedings originate cannot be the sole criterion for determining jurisdiction and that if a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, such High Court would be competent to entertain the proceedings.
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
which has to be considered in conjunction with the other facts constituting the cause of action.
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
which originated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
3.21. Placing reliance on the principles enunciated in Navinchandra N. Majithia , learned Senior Counsel submits that when the entirety of the facts pleaded in the writ petition are considered, it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He therefore submits that this Court ought to
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and adjudicate the dispute on merits.
"(2) The power conferre d by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the scat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories."
HC-KAR
Article 226(2) was specifically incorporated to expand the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts beyond the traditional concept of the situs of the authority against whom relief is sought. According to him, the emphasis under Article 226(2) is not on the location of the respondent but on the place where the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen.
3.25. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the constitutional mandate is clear that even where the seat of a Government, authority or person is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, the High Court would nevertheless possess jurisdiction if any integral, material or substantial part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits. He submits that the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma and Navinchandra N. Majithia are a reiteration of the aforesaid constitutional principle.
HC-KAR
be determinative of the issue of jurisdiction. Once a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, Article 226(2) expressly empowers this Court to issue appropriate directions, orders or writs even against a person or authority located beyond its territorial limits.
HC-KAR
issue appropriate directions against Krishnapatnam Port notwithstanding that its registered office and port operations are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
HC-KAR
appointed as the handling agent for the purpose of availing port-related services. In terms of the said arrangement, Krishnapatnam Port rendered various services including berthing, cargo handling, storage, stevedoring and other allied port services in relation to the imported sand.
HC-KAR
to the concerned parties to clear the outstanding amounts.
HC-KAR
not with any intention of depriving the petitioner of its property.
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
case of Union of India and Others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and Another3 , more particularly para '17' and '18' thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
17. It is seen from the above that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application as in this case, 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 from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their 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 the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. If we apply this principle then we see that none of the facts pleaded in para 16 of the petition, in our opinion, falls into the category of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad.
18. As we have noticed earlier, the fact that the respondents are carrying on the business of export and import or that they are receiving the export and import orders at Ahmedabad or that their documents and payments for exports and imports are sent/made at Ahmedabad, has
3 (2002) 1 SCC 567
HC-KAR
no connection whatsoever with the dispute that is involved in the applications. Similarly, the fact that the credit of duty claimed in respect of exports that were made from Chennai were handled by the respondents from Ahmedabad have also no connection whatsoever with the actions of the appellants impugned in the application. The non-granting and denial of credit in the passbook having an ultimate effect, if any, on the business of the respondents at Ahmedabad would not also, in our opinion, give rise to any such cause of action to a court at Ahmedabad to adjudicate on the actions complained against the appellants.
4.10. By relying on the decision of Adani Export Ltd., he submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that every fact pleaded in a writ petition does not automatically constitute a part of the cause of action. Only those facts which have a direct nexus and relevance to the lis involved in the proceedings can be taken into consideration for determining territorial jurisdiction. Facts which are incidental or unconnected with the dispute do not confer jurisdiction merely because they have occurred within the territorial limits of a particular High Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
of the Court, but whether such facts form an integral part of the cause of action giving rise to the dispute. According to him, the Court is required to identify the real controversy between the parties and ascertain whether the facts relied upon have a direct bearing on the adjudication of that controversy.
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
from Bengaluru and the internal commercial arrangements of the petitioner, have no nexus whatsoever with the impugned action initiated by Krishnapatnam Port. According to him, those facts may explain how the petitioner claims ownership over the cargo, but they do not constitute facts giving rise to the dispute regarding the legality of the auction proceedings.
4.14. Learned counsel further submits that Krishnapatnam Port is not a party to the agreement between the petitioner and Poseidon. Nor is Krishnapatnam Port concerned with the contractual arrangements entered into between Poseidon and the petitioner. The rights asserted by Krishnapatnam Port are founded upon the services rendered by it in relation to the cargo and the alleged nonpayment of the charges payable therefor. Thus, the contractual dealings relied upon by the petitioner have no direct nexus with the impugned auction proceedings.
HC-KAR
petitioner and Poseidon or between the petitioner and other entities at Bengaluru cannot constitute a part of the cause of action insofar as the present lis is concerned. Such correspondence does not relate to the exercise of the alleged right by Krishnapatnam Port to retain and auction the cargo. Therefore, the same cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conferring territorial jurisdiction on this Court.
4.16. He further contends that all material events relating to the impugned action have occurred within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The cargo is lying at Krishnapatnam Port in Andhra Pradesh; the services giving rise to the alleged dues were rendered at Krishnapatnam Port; the alleged default occurred there; the decision to proceed against the cargo was taken there; and the proposed auction is also sought to be conducted there. According to him, these are the only facts which have a direct nexus with the present lis .
HC-KAR
because the petitioner carries on business at Bengaluru or because certain antecedent contractual transactions took place at Bengaluru would not confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court when those facts have no direct bearing on the dispute sought to be adjudicated. He therefore submits that no part of the cause of action relevant to the present lis has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, consequently, the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
4.18. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others4 , more particularly para '12' thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"12. Pointing out that after the issuance of the notification by the State Government under Section 52(1) of the Act, the notified land became vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and hence it was not necessary for the respondents to plead the service of notice under Section 52(2) for the grant of an appropriate direction or order
4 (1994) 4 SCC 711
HC-KAR
under Article 226 for quashing the notification acquiring the land. This Court, therefore, held that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. This Court deeply regretted and deprecated the practice prevalent in the High Court of exercising jurisdiction and passing interlocutory orders in matters where it lacked territorial jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the strong observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decision and in the earlier decisions referred to therein, we are distressed that the High Court of Calcutta persists in exercising jurisdiction even in cases where no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. It is indeed a great pity that one of the premier High Courts of the country should appear to have developed a tendency to assume jurisdiction on the sole ground that the petitioner before it resides in or carries on business from a registered office in the State of West Bengal. We feel all the more pained that notwithstanding the observations of this Court made time and again, some of the learned Judges continue to betray that tendency. Only recently while disposing of appeals arising out of SLP Nos. 10065-66 of 1993, Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd. [(1994) 4 SCC 710] , this Court observed:
“We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court of Calcutta should have exercised jurisdiction in a case where it had absolutely no jurisdiction.”
In that case, the contract in question was executed at Aligarh, the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh, the contracts provided that in the event of dispute the Aligarh court alone will have jurisdiction, the arbitrator was appointed at Aligarh and was to function at Aligarh and yet merely because the respondent was a Calcutta-based firm, it instituted proceedings in the Calcutta High Court and the High Court exercised jurisdiction
HC-KAR
where it had none whatsoever. It must be remembered that the image and prestige of a court depends on how the members of that institution conduct themselves. If an impression gains ground that even in cases which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, certain members of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire system to ridicule. We are greatly pained to say so but if we do not strongly deprecate the growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be failing in our duty to the institution and the system of administration of justice. We do hope that we will not have another occasion to deal with such a situation."
4.19. By relying on Utpal Kumar Basu's case , his submission is that the Hon'ble Apex Court emphatically reiterated that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be assumed merely because the petitioner resides, carries on business or maintains a registered office within the territorial limits of a particular High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court cautioned against entertaining proceedings on the basis of facts which are trivial, incidental or unconnected with the real dispute and
HC-KAR
emphasised that only those facts constituting an integral part of the cause of action can confer jurisdiction.
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
cannot therefore be treated as facts constituting the cause of action for the present proceedings.
HC-KAR
contrary to the principles laid down in Utpal Kumar Basu, Adani Exports Ltd. and other decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which have repeatedly held that jurisdiction cannot be founded upon facts having no real nexus with the lis .
HC-KAR
proceedings, would have to seek appropriate relief before the Court having territorial jurisdiction over Krishnapatnam Port and the subject matter of the dispute.
HC-KAR
jurisdiction notwithstanding that the seat of the Government, authority or person against whom relief is sought may be situated outside such territorial limits. The expression "cause of action" occurring in Article 226(2) has received extensive judicial interpretation. It is now well settled that the expression refers to those material, essential and integral facts which a petitioner must establish in order to obtain the relief sought.
HC-KAR
founded upon the aforesaid principle. The apparent divergence in outcomes in those decisions is attributable not to any difference in the governing legal principle but to the differing factual matrices involved therein. Thus, the present matter must be examined by identifying the true nature of the dispute and the facts which are material to its resolution.
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
commercial arrangements entered into by the petitioner with its suppliers. The lis before this Court is confined to the legality and validity of the action initiated by Krishnapatnam Port in relation to the cargo lying within its custody.
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
13.7. the proposed conduct of the auction.
15.1. the petitioner is situated at Bengaluru;
15.6. the petitioner claims ownership over the cargo.
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
HC-KAR
maintenance of accounts and carrying on of business at a particular place would not confer territorial jurisdiction unless such facts have a direct nexus with the dispute under consideration. The Court emphasised that only those facts having a bearing on the lis are relevant.
HC-KAR
received but whether the communication constitutes a material fact necessary for adjudication of the controversy.
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
that material parts of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Furthermore, one of the reliefs sought was transfer of investigation to authorities situated within Maharashtra. Thus, the facts constituting the cause of action extended beyond the mere place where the complaint had been lodged.
HC-KAR
Court observed that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by relying upon facts which are trivial, incidental or unconnected with the real dispute.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:28686 WP No. 25052 of 2024
HC-KAR
the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
GJM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Karnataka High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) to entertain a writ petition challenging an auction notice issued by a port in Andhra Pradesh.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and OthersDistinguished¶21
(2014) 9 SCC 329 · Who else cites this
Navinchandran N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra and othersDistinguished¶23
(2000) 7 SCC 640 · Who else cites this
Union of India and Others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and AnotherFollowed¶18
(2002) 1 SCC 567 · Who else cites this
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and OthersApplied¶25
(1994) 4 SCC 711 · Who else cites this
Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd.Referred¶27
(1994) 4 SCC 710 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mysore Sales International Limited
The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka
Adani Krishnapatnam Port Ltd.
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
