Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 may still be declined where statutory remedy and forum conveniens point to another forum.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was found available because the impugned attachment notifications concerned properties in Gujarat and part of the cause of action arose there. However, the Court held that the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory remedy under the MPID Act, as that mechanism was adequate to examine the challenge to the attachment proceedings. The Court also applied forum conveniens, noting that the core dispute, investigation, Designated Court proceedings, and connected matters were centred in Maharashtra. The petitions were therefore declined at the threshold, with the parties left to pursue remedies before the competent forums in Maharashtra.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether this Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the petitions, (ii) whether the availability of remedies under the MPID Act warranted relegating the petitioners to the statutory forum, and (iii) whether the petitions should be declined on the principle of forum conveniens.

Issue (i): whether this Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the petitions

Analysis: The impugned attachment notifications and consequential directions related to properties situated in Gujarat. The Court held that when the properties sought to be attached are within the territorial limits of this Court, a part of the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. Mere fact that the underlying transactions, investigation and statutory proceedings were centred in Maharashtra did not eliminate territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2).

Conclusion: The Court held that territorial jurisdiction was available to this Court.

Issue (ii): whether the availability of remedies under the MPID Act warranted relegating the petitioners to the statutory forum

Analysis: The MPID Act provides a self-contained mechanism, including proceedings before the Designated Court and a further appeal to the High Court. The Court also noted the settled principle that the existence of an alternative remedy does not oust writ jurisdiction in every case, but the petitioners were challenging attachment proceedings that could be examined by the statutory forum. In the facts, the Court found the statutory remedy to be adequate for adjudication of the grievance.

Conclusion: The Court held that the petitioners ought to be relegated to the remedy under the MPID Act.

Issue (iii): whether the petitions should be declined on the principle of forum conveniens

Analysis: The Court found that the material cause of action, the exchange, the FIR, the investigation, the Designated Court proceedings, and several connected disputes were all centred in Mumbai. In addition, multiple connected proceedings were already pending before forums in Maharashtra. Applying the principle of forum conveniens, the Court held that the more appropriate and convenient forum for adjudication was in Maharashtra, particularly the Designated Court under the MPID Act and the Bombay High Court as the appellate forum.

Conclusion: The Court held that the petitions should not be entertained and that the petitioners should pursue proceedings before the appropriate forum in Maharashtra.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were declined at the threshold and the parties were left to work out their remedies before the competent forums in Maharashtra, while the connected Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of in the same manner.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where part of the cause of action arises within the territorial limits of a High Court, that Court may decline writ jurisdiction if a more appropriate statutory forum is available and the balance of convenience overwhelmingly points to another forum where the core dispute and connected proceedings are already pending.

---