https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341337 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was found available because the impugned attachment notifications concerned properties in Gujarat and part of the cause of action arose there. However, the Court held that the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory remedy under the MPID Act, as that mechanism was adequate to examine the challenge to the attachment proceedings. The Court also applied forum conveniens, noting that the core dispute, investigation, Designated Court proceedings, and connected matters were centred in Maharashtra. The petitions were therefore declined at the threshold, with the parties left to pursue remedies before the competent forums in Maharashtra. en-us Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:02:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341337 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was found available because the impugned attachment notifications concerned properties in Gujarat and part of the cause of action arose there. However, the Court held that the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory remedy under the MPID Act, as that mechanism was adequate to examine the challenge to the attachment proceedings. The Court also applied forum conveniens, noting that the core dispute, investigation, Designated Court proceedings, and connected matters were centred in Maharashtra. The petitions were therefore declined at the threshold, with the parties left to pursue remedies before the competent forums in Maharashtra. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341337