https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460018 The Delhi HC held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition because no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. The mere presence of a regional office in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction where that office was not involved in, and did not conduct, the investigation. The Court also noted that the relevant RTI applications and other connecting facts related to places outside Delhi, and that some implicated banks were not impleaded. The writ petition was returned for presentation before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction, with no opinion expressed on merits. en-us Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jan 2025 15:47:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460018 The Delhi HC held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition because no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. The mere presence of a regional office in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction where that office was not involved in, and did not conduct, the investigation. The Court also noted that the relevant RTI applications and other connecting facts related to places outside Delhi, and that some implicated banks were not impleaded. The writ petition was returned for presentation before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction, with no opinion expressed on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460018