https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288315 Territorial jurisdiction was sustained because the respondent organisation's headquarters were in Delhi, which was treated as sufficient under Article 226(1) to entertain the writ petition. The termination for non-disclosure of a criminal case in the attestation form was not upheld outright; given that the case arose from a family quarrel, was compounded, and ended in acquittal, the Court held that the suppression issue required fresh examination in light of the governing principles on disclosure of criminal antecedents. The termination orders were set aside and the matter remitted to the competent authority for reconsideration. en-us Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 31 May 2020 04:22:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288315 Territorial jurisdiction was sustained because the respondent organisation's headquarters were in Delhi, which was treated as sufficient under Article 226(1) to entertain the writ petition. The termination for non-disclosure of a criminal case in the attestation form was not upheld outright; given that the case arose from a family quarrel, was compounded, and ended in acquittal, the Court held that the suppression issue required fresh examination in light of the governing principles on disclosure of criminal antecedents. The termination orders were set aside and the matter remitted to the competent authority for reconsideration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288315