Territorial jurisdiction and procedural fairness challenges to an adjudication order led to interim protection against coercive action.

Writ petitions challenge a common adjudication order on the ground that proceedings were transferred from Delhi to Mumbai through a corrigendum without authority, and also allege inordinate delay and breach of procedural fairness causing prejudice. The Court considered these jurisdictional and fairness objections as requiring deeper examination and, pending further hearing, granted interim protection against coercive action on the basis of the impugned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the common adjudication order on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, delay, and breach of procedural fairness required consideration; and whether interim protection against coercive action was warranted pending further hearing.

Analysis: The writ petitions assail the adjudication order principally on the basis that the proceedings were transferred from Delhi to Mumbai through a corrigendum without authority, besides alleging inordinate delay and procedural unfairness causing prejudice. The issues were regarded as requiring deeper consideration. Pending notice to the respondents, the Court granted interim protection against coercive action on the basis of the impugned order.

Outcome: Notice issued to the respondents, returnable on 11 August 2026, with private notice and humdast permitted, and no coercive action to be taken against the petitioners on the basis of the impugned order without leave of the Court.

---