https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305275 Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the impugned environmental clearance and the appellate authority were located in Delhi, and forum non conveniens was not made out absent a clearly more convenient forum or a real risk of conflicting adjudication. The plea of suppression also failed, as the other pending proceedings were not material to the limited issue before the Court and no intent to mislead or gain unfair advantage was shown. Section 11 of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 was construed broadly, so an organisation actively concerned with the project's environmental impact qualified as a person aggrieved and could maintain the appeal. The appellate authority's contrary view was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision on merits. en-us Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Nov 2022 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305275 Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the impugned environmental clearance and the appellate authority were located in Delhi, and forum non conveniens was not made out absent a clearly more convenient forum or a real risk of conflicting adjudication. The plea of suppression also failed, as the other pending proceedings were not material to the limited issue before the Court and no intent to mislead or gain unfair advantage was shown. Section 11 of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 was construed broadly, so an organisation actively concerned with the project's environmental impact qualified as a person aggrieved and could maintain the appeal. The appellate authority's contrary view was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305275