Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
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.