https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304712 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) is not established merely because an appellate hearing or pronouncement occurs within a High Court's limits. Where the petitioners' business, patent filings, registration, and revocation-related proceedings were centred in Mumbai, and the Chennai hearing was only a convenience arrangement because the Mumbai Circuit Bench sat infrequently, the principal cause of action remained Mumbai. Applying the doctrine of forum conveniens, the Madras High Court declined to entertain the writ petitions and directed the parties to pursue the matter before the competent court at Mumbai. en-us Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Oct 2022 21:01:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304712 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) is not established merely because an appellate hearing or pronouncement occurs within a High Court's limits. Where the petitioners' business, patent filings, registration, and revocation-related proceedings were centred in Mumbai, and the Chennai hearing was only a convenience arrangement because the Mumbai Circuit Bench sat infrequently, the principal cause of action remained Mumbai. Applying the doctrine of forum conveniens, the Madras High Court declined to entertain the writ petitions and directed the parties to pursue the matter before the competent court at Mumbai. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304712