https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285645 Article explains that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on whether a material part of the cause of action arose within the High Court's territory, and that even a small but integral part can suffice on the pleadings. It also notes that territorial jurisdiction does not require the Court to entertain every writ petition: the doctrine of forum convenience may justify refusal where another forum is more appropriate, particularly to avoid conflicting proceedings. On the stated facts, the matter was considered more suitably pursued before the Delhi forum, despite territorial jurisdiction in Chennai. en-us Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jan 2020 16:36:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285645 Article explains that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on whether a material part of the cause of action arose within the High Court's territory, and that even a small but integral part can suffice on the pleadings. It also notes that territorial jurisdiction does not require the Court to entertain every writ petition: the doctrine of forum convenience may justify refusal where another forum is more appropriate, particularly to avoid conflicting proceedings. On the stated facts, the matter was considered more suitably pursued before the Delhi forum, despite territorial jurisdiction in Chennai. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285645