https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286330 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) was held to depend on the executive decision-making process challenged in the writ, not merely on the place of crime or investigation. A challenge to rejection of a mercy petition under Articles 72 and 161 was treated as distinct from the completed criminal proceedings, so it was not a continuation of the trial or appeal. Applying cause of action principles and forum conveniens, the Court found that the relevant material and processing were in Delhi and that the writ petition could be entertained there. The objection to jurisdiction therefore failed. en-us Tue, 06 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:21:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286330 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) was held to depend on the executive decision-making process challenged in the writ, not merely on the place of crime or investigation. A challenge to rejection of a mercy petition under Articles 72 and 161 was treated as distinct from the completed criminal proceedings, so it was not a continuation of the trial or appeal. Applying cause of action principles and forum conveniens, the Court found that the relevant material and processing were in Delhi and that the writ petition could be entertained there. The objection to jurisdiction therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286330