https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308371 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) was attracted because a material part of the cause of action arose where pension was received and later stopped, and the recovery demand affected the petitioner there. The later writ petition was based on a distinct subsequent cause of action, so it could not be defeated by reference to an earlier writ on different facts pending elsewhere. The doctrine of forum conveniens did not justify refusal to exercise jurisdiction absent compelling reasons. The High Court's dismissal for want of territorial jurisdiction was therefore erroneous, and the writ petition was restored for decision on merits. en-us Thu, 05 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Jun 2023 21:05:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308371 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) was attracted because a material part of the cause of action arose where pension was received and later stopped, and the recovery demand affected the petitioner there. The later writ petition was based on a distinct subsequent cause of action, so it could not be defeated by reference to an earlier writ on different facts pending elsewhere. The doctrine of forum conveniens did not justify refusal to exercise jurisdiction absent compelling reasons. The High Court's dismissal for want of territorial jurisdiction was therefore erroneous, and the writ petition was restored for decision on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308371