<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (1) TMI 1521 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462406</link>
    <description>Rule 6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 allows an original application to be filed where the applicant is posted, was last posted or attached, and also where the cause of action has arisen wholly or in part; these clauses operate independently. On the stated facts, a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi because the penalty order and appellate order were issued from Delhi and the relevant record was available there. The Delhi High Court noted that the doctrine of forum conveniens did not require transfer elsewhere because Delhi was itself a convenient forum. The Principal Bench at Delhi therefore had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 19:58:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=830584" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 1521 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462406</link>
      <description>Rule 6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 allows an original application to be filed where the applicant is posted, was last posted or attached, and also where the cause of action has arisen wholly or in part; these clauses operate independently. On the stated facts, a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi because the penalty order and appellate order were issued from Delhi and the relevant record was available there. The Delhi High Court noted that the doctrine of forum conveniens did not require transfer elsewhere because Delhi was itself a convenient forum. The Principal Bench at Delhi therefore had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462406</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>