https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294417 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) was upheld because the applicant's registered office and business were in Mumbai, the renewal request was made there, and the impugned refusal had its effect there, so part of the cause of action arose within the Court's limits. On licence renewal, the authority could not rely on an irrelevant non-disclosure ground where the dispute was not pending and the prescribed particulars had been disclosed. The remaining issue under Regulation 23 required fair hearing and proper consideration of material not previously put to the applicant. The Court therefore declined to direct renewal outright and remanded the matter for fresh decision after hearing the applicant. en-us Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Apr 2021 13:14:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294417 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) was upheld because the applicant's registered office and business were in Mumbai, the renewal request was made there, and the impugned refusal had its effect there, so part of the cause of action arose within the Court's limits. On licence renewal, the authority could not rely on an irrelevant non-disclosure ground where the dispute was not pending and the prescribed particulars had been disclosed. The remaining issue under Regulation 23 required fair hearing and proper consideration of material not previously put to the applicant. The Court therefore declined to direct renewal outright and remanded the matter for fresh decision after hearing the applicant. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294417