Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Article 226(2) permits writ jurisdiction where part of the cause of action arises within a court's territory, but its discretionary operation requires consideration of forum conveniens and the principal, substantial nexus. Issuance of an investigation order from Delhi and an affidavit filed by an SFIO officer there did not create a sufficient nexus with Delhi. Mumbai was the appropriate forum because the companies' registered offices and records, the relevant Registrar of Companies, insolvency proceedings, the competent Special Court, and related investigation proceedings were situated there. The writ petition was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, without examining the investigation's merits.
Article 226(2) permits writ jurisdiction where part of the cause of action arises within a court's territory, but its discretionary operation requires consideration of forum conveniens and the principal, substantial nexus. Issuance of an investigation order from Delhi and an affidavit filed by an SFIO officer there did not create a sufficient nexus with Delhi. Mumbai was the appropriate forum because the companies' registered offices and records, the relevant Registrar of Companies, insolvency proceedings, the competent Special Court, and related investigation proceedings were situated there. The writ petition was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, without examining the investigation's merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.