https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236592 Territorial jurisdiction for quashing was rejected because the complaint disclosed Delhi-based statutory acts and omissions under the SEBI framework. The company was required to send correspondence to the Northern Regional Office in Delhi, file the prescribed report there, and comply with winding up and repayment obligations there; it also maintained a Delhi office and dealt with the Delhi office of SEBI. On those facts, the cause of action was not confined to Lucknow, and interference under section 482 was unwarranted, especially as the trial was already at an advanced stage. en-us Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Sep 2013 12:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236592 Territorial jurisdiction for quashing was rejected because the complaint disclosed Delhi-based statutory acts and omissions under the SEBI framework. The company was required to send correspondence to the Northern Regional Office in Delhi, file the prescribed report there, and comply with winding up and repayment obligations there; it also maintained a Delhi office and dealt with the Delhi office of SEBI. On those facts, the cause of action was not confined to Lucknow, and interference under section 482 was unwarranted, especially as the trial was already at an advanced stage. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236592