1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Delhi HC Dismisses Petition Against Company & SEBI Due to Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction; Case to Be Filed Elsewhere.</h1> The Delhi HC dismissed the Public Interest Writ Petition filed by a society against a company and SEBI, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court ... - In the case cited as 2013 (9) TMI 1313 - DELHI HIGH COURT, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjeev Sachdeva, addressed a Public Interest Writ Petition filed by a society against respondent No.4, a company registered in Secundrabad, Andhra Pradesh, and respondent No.3, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) located in Mumbai.The petitioner argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction since SEBI has a regional office in Delhi, and filing elsewhere would incur additional expenses. However, the court noted that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, and the regional office in Delhi was not involved in the investigation. The court emphasized that 'location of Regional office of the respondent No.3 will not confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court,' as the office in question did not conduct any investigations related to the case.Ultimately, the court concluded that it lacked territorial jurisdiction and returned the petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to file in the appropriate High Court. The court did not comment on the merits of the case.