https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469432 For a writ under Article 226(2), territorial jurisdiction depends on whether the pleaded facts form a material and integral part of the cause of action with a real nexus to the impugned order. Here, a challenge to an impleadment order before the Competition Commission did not gain jurisdiction from alleged spillover effects in Tamil Nadu or investigation-related search and seizure, because those facts had no real connection with the order. The Court also applied forum conveniens and judicial comity: as the same impleadment order was already pending before the Delhi High Court, Delhi was the more appropriate forum and parallel proceedings risked conflicting outcomes. The writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable in that Court. en-us Mon, 14 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jun 2026 16:52:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469432 For a writ under Article 226(2), territorial jurisdiction depends on whether the pleaded facts form a material and integral part of the cause of action with a real nexus to the impugned order. Here, a challenge to an impleadment order before the Competition Commission did not gain jurisdiction from alleged spillover effects in Tamil Nadu or investigation-related search and seizure, because those facts had no real connection with the order. The Court also applied forum conveniens and judicial comity: as the same impleadment order was already pending before the Delhi High Court, Delhi was the more appropriate forum and parallel proceedings risked conflicting outcomes. The writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable in that Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469432