https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244845 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether a material and substantial part of the cause of action arises within the court's limits. Because the ECIR was registered in Mumbai, the investigation was conducted there, the PMLA complaint was filed there, and the trial was pending there, Delhi had no territorial nexus sufficient to entertain the writ petition. The summons issued in Delhi and the arrest there were treated as incidental facts, not part of the material bundle of facts. The Court also applied forum conveniens and found Mumbai the appropriate forum since the Special Court, prosecution, and evidence were all situated there. The writ petition was properly declined. en-us Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244845 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether a material and substantial part of the cause of action arises within the court's limits. Because the ECIR was registered in Mumbai, the investigation was conducted there, the PMLA complaint was filed there, and the trial was pending there, Delhi had no territorial nexus sufficient to entertain the writ petition. The summons issued in Delhi and the arrest there were treated as incidental facts, not part of the material bundle of facts. The Court also applied forum conveniens and found Mumbai the appropriate forum since the Special Court, prosecution, and evidence were all situated there. The writ petition was properly declined. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244845