Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether the material, essential and integral cause of action arises within the forum, and the doctrine of forum conveniens may justify refusal even if some connection with Delhi exists. The Court held that the petitioners' residence, the searches and seizures, the ECIR, the investigating officers, and the PMLA proceedings were all centred in Gurugram, so Delhi was not the appropriate forum. It further held that the respondent-authority's location or the mere registration of the predicate offence in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction, because money-laundering is an independent offence. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether the material, essential and integral cause of action arises within the forum, and the doctrine of forum conveniens may justify refusal even if some connection with Delhi exists. The Court held that the petitioners' residence, the searches and seizures, the ECIR, the investigating officers, and the PMLA proceedings were all centred in Gurugram, so Delhi was not the appropriate forum. It further held that the respondent-authority's location or the mere registration of the predicate offence in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction, because money-laundering is an independent offence. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
