https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439485 Part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, so the Calcutta HC held that Article 226(2) was satisfied and the writ was maintainable. Constructive res judicata did not apply because the earlier proceedings did not involve identical parties, identical reliefs, or a matter finally decided. On the SFIO investigation, section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 contains no fixed outer limit, so the Court would not stay the investigation or impose a rigid completion deadline, though it expected completion within a reasonable period. Limited protective directions were issued for compliance with Supreme Court CCTV directions and preservation of relevant CCTV evidence. en-us Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Jun 2023 13:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439485 Part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, so the Calcutta HC held that Article 226(2) was satisfied and the writ was maintainable. Constructive res judicata did not apply because the earlier proceedings did not involve identical parties, identical reliefs, or a matter finally decided. On the SFIO investigation, section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 contains no fixed outer limit, so the Court would not stay the investigation or impose a rigid completion deadline, though it expected completion within a reasonable period. Limited protective directions were issued for compliance with Supreme Court CCTV directions and preservation of relevant CCTV evidence. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439485