Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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.