https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395721 The court held that jurisdiction for recovery proceedings lies with the authorities of Karnataka State. The petitioner's writ petition seeking a mandamus to prevent payment against a bank guarantee was disposed of, emphasizing the need to approach the correct jurisdiction for remedies. Recovery proceedings were stayed for four weeks to allow the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in Karnataka. Failure to do so would permit the respondents to take legal action, underscoring the importance of exhausting available legal avenues before the relevant authorities. en-us Mon, 01 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jun 2020 04:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395721 The court held that jurisdiction for recovery proceedings lies with the authorities of Karnataka State. The petitioner's writ petition seeking a mandamus to prevent payment against a bank guarantee was disposed of, emphasizing the need to approach the correct jurisdiction for remedies. Recovery proceedings were stayed for four weeks to allow the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in Karnataka. Failure to do so would permit the respondents to take legal action, underscoring the importance of exhausting available legal avenues before the relevant authorities. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 01 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395721