https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797883 Article 226(2) territorial jurisdiction remains discretionary even where part of the cause of action arises within a High Court's territory. Issuance of an SFIO investigation order from New Delhi and the location of SFIO headquarters there did not create a substantial connection where the investigated companies' registered offices and records, the Registrar of Companies, insolvency proceedings, and prospective prosecution forum were in Mumbai. Forum conveniens required adjudication by the High Court with the closest connection, particularly as related investigation proceedings were pending there. Territorial jurisdiction was therefore declined in favour of the High Court of Bombay. en-us Wed, 26 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Aug 2026 14:35:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797883 Article 226(2) territorial jurisdiction remains discretionary even where part of the cause of action arises within a High Court's territory. Issuance of an SFIO investigation order from New Delhi and the location of SFIO headquarters there did not create a substantial connection where the investigated companies' registered offices and records, the Registrar of Companies, insolvency proceedings, and prospective prosecution forum were in Mumbai. Forum conveniens required adjudication by the High Court with the closest connection, particularly as related investigation proceedings were pending there. Territorial jurisdiction was therefore declined in favour of the High Court of Bombay. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 26 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797883