https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447231 Delhi HC declined jurisdiction over writ petitions challenging SEBI's revocation of settlement agreements for minimum public shareholding violations. The court held that while Article 226(2) enables High Courts to issue writs against authorities located outside their territorial jurisdiction, the primary consideration remains where the cause of action arises. Since the settlement negotiations, finalization, and revocation decisions all occurred in Mumbai within SEBI's operations, the material cause of action arose within Bombay HC's jurisdiction. Applying forum conveniens principles, Delhi HC found Bombay HC to be the appropriate forum and dismissed the petitions, noting petitioners had previously approached Bombay HC for related matters. en-us Mon, 18 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Dec 2023 16:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447231 Delhi HC declined jurisdiction over writ petitions challenging SEBI's revocation of settlement agreements for minimum public shareholding violations. The court held that while Article 226(2) enables High Courts to issue writs against authorities located outside their territorial jurisdiction, the primary consideration remains where the cause of action arises. Since the settlement negotiations, finalization, and revocation decisions all occurred in Mumbai within SEBI's operations, the material cause of action arose within Bombay HC's jurisdiction. Applying forum conveniens principles, Delhi HC found Bombay HC to be the appropriate forum and dismissed the petitions, noting petitioners had previously approached Bombay HC for related matters. Case-Laws SEBI Mon, 18 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447231