A Critique of the Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts in India –


One of the most important issues that a lawyer essentially has to deal with, i.e. with regard to a specific dispute or a dispute that has arisen from a legal relationship between the respective parties, subsequently relates to the place of jurisdiction, which is the local one Has jurisdiction over such a dispute.

It would be imperative to consider the notion of jurisdiction, which is a conglomerate of two terms, such as: juris (means “law”) and Diction (means “to speak”), which can be translated as acceptance of the appropriate forum that has the potential to “speak the law”. Similarly, the Black Law’s Dictionary has defined the above term as “the power of a court to rule a case or issue a decree”. Overall, the only reason for adopting such a concept is to give each court the freedom to rule and rule on matters that tend to fall within the financial or territorial confines of the jurisdiction concerned. It can be argued that the very origin of jurisdiction derives its essence from international law, constitutional law, conflict of laws, and the powers established in the legislative and executive branches of government to allocate resources to adequately meet the needs of society.


It would be appropriate to take into account Section 20 of the 1908 Code of Civil Procedure, which postulates that a plaintiff has full freedom and liberty to bring an action in a particular court within the local confines of the adversary against whom he is voluntarily filing a claim, if he is employed or attested to the exercise of his activity.

In addition, the above provision also provides that the action can also be brought before a court within the local borders of the opponent, if part or all of the cause of action is witnessed. Bringing attention to this will generally consider the plea in law to be facts related to the appeal, claim (s) made by the plaintiff, and will also allow that party to bring a lawsuit against the plaintiff said person. In addition, the 1908 Code of Civil Procedure also ensured that in cases where there is more than one defendant, the relevant action can be brought in a specific court in whose jurisdiction the defendant (s) do their business or reside.

Having said the same thing, it would also be pertinent to point out that in such a situation, in circumstances where it is testified that the property is in the jurisdiction of more than one court, the plaintiff has the freedom to bring the relevant action in one of the to be submitted to the courts within the jurisdiction of the parties in both cases.

In case of ABC Laminart Private Limited v AP Agencies Salem, the Hon’ble Supreme Court postulated that any fact which, if breached, would oblige the plaintiff to prove his or her right by reference to the judgment given by the court, can be considered a cause of action.


Section 177 of the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code plays an exemplary role in ensuring that any crime committed within the Indian jurisdiction is brought to justice and normally investigated, taking into account the local boundaries of the crime committed. What is special about this provision is that this law also provides that in cases where the offense can be proven to consist of several acts committed in different local areas, under such conditions the case will be heard and investigated in a specific court, which is attested to having jurisdiction over such local areas.

It would also be necessary to refer to Section 188 of the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code which gives Indian Criminal Courts the power and jurisdiction that if the crime is portrayed as committed outside of India by a non-national or Indian citizen, that on India-registered aircraft or ships were committed, the defendant will be treated with respect to the said crime as if the said crime had actually been committed in an Indian jurisdiction, subject to a sanction acquired by the central government. In simpler terms, while the police in India are taking notice of the crime in question, under no circumstances will the process be carried out without the prior sanctioning of the central government as postulated in the above provision.

It would be important to note the case Reg. C. Benito Lopez, taking into account the question of jurisdiction in relation to crimes committed on the high seas by foreigners or by ships carried in England. This decision led to the highlighting of several principles of international law which claimed that a person can be punished for their offenses regardless of the location of the crime.


The Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act of 1996 plays an essential role in defining the term “court” under Section 2 (1) (e), the aforesaid provision indicating the actual purpose of the main civil court which is to be held in a district that exercises original civil jurisdiction and has jurisdiction under applicable law in relation to the subject matter of the arbitration. In addition, this provision also provides that the Court of Justice is a full or a high court of the respective states, but does not include a specific court that is inferior to a court for minor cases or a main court for civil matters.

This law, established in the Arbitration Act, provides that any person who is prejudiced by a particular arbitration award or in circumstances in which the person wishes to contest the arbitration award or under conditions in which he or she wishes to enforce the award may initiate arbitration proceedings the Scholarly Civil Court or the Hon’ble High Court under the provisions of the 1908 Code of Civil Procedure which established such rules of the original civil jurisdiction.

Therefore, in relation to an arbitration agreement, any individual party may make such a request for arbitration to seek or contest enforcement of the award subject to the following conditions:

  • Either where the defendant is doing business or where he is domiciled.
  • When part or all of the cause of the action arises.

In considering the main principles of arbitration law, care would be taken to mention the essence of arbitration, which is governed by the municipal law of the arbitral tribunal, in Section 2 (1) (e), which, as explained above, is worth mentioning has defined the competent court for the “subject of the arbitration proceedings”. The law therefore gives the High Court or the main civil courts supervisory authority within the local limits of arbitration. It would be pertinent to take note of the case BALCO v. Kaiser Services, in which the Apex Court shed light on the above principle and used the phrase “subject matter of arbitration”.


The sheer nature of a written petition takes into account the enforcement of fundamental rights which can be invoked in either the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution or the Supreme Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

For example, Article 226 (1) of the Indian Constitution examines and postulates that the Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over the government, agency or individual, has the power to deal with the written petition against the accused regardless of the location of the cause of the action, if there was actually a cause of action for filing the said application.

In addition, Article 226 (2) of the Indian Constitution provides that the Supreme Court, within whose local limits or jurisdiction, part or all of the cause of action is deemed well founded, has jurisdiction to issue the necessary order (s) or direction (s) ) to ensure the enforcement of fundamental rights or other rights related to this.


Overall, a careful and critical examination of the concept of jurisdiction is essential, as a misinterpretation of the relevant provisions can lead to costs and time-consuming proceedings in legal disputes. In addition, it is essential to point out that in the absence of jurisdiction, such jurisdiction within the respective court / community court can under no circumstances be established by a contract between the parties concerned.

Comments are closed.