Territorial jurisdiction under FEMA appeals depends on where the aggrieved party ordinarily carries on business, not on incidental Mumbai connections.

Territorial jurisdiction under FEMA appeals depends on where the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business at the relevant time. An administrative office, bank account, or execution of a transaction in another place does not by itself confer jurisdiction, and the court rejected attempts to split the cause of action or rely on general forum conveniens principles. On the stated facts, the company's registered office, business activity, and contractual obligations were centred in Bangalore, so the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal lay before the Karnataka High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange were maintainable before the High Court of Bombay in view of the territorial jurisdiction clause in Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Analysis: The jurisdictional test under Section 35 turns on the High Court within whose jurisdiction the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The company's registered office was at Bangalore, the underlying business activity related to development of property in Bangalore, and the relevant obligations under the agreement were centered there. The presence of an administrative office and a bank account in Mumbai, without material showing that the company ordinarily carried on business there, was held insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The fact that the agreement for sale of shares was executed in Bombay and that the directors resided in Mumbai did not justify splitting the cause of action or shifting jurisdiction away from the place where the company's business was ordinarily carried on. Principles drawn from Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the forum conveniens doctrine were found inapplicable to the specific statutory scheme of FEMA.

Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable in the Bombay High Court and lay before the High Court of Karnataka.

Ratio Decidendi: For an appeal under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place where the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business at the relevant time, and mere execution of a transaction at another place, or the existence of an administrative office or bank account there, does not confer jurisdiction.

---