https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797883 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) remains discretionary even where an SFIO investigation order is issued from Delhi. The principal nexus may instead lie where the investigated companies maintain their registered offices and records, the relevant Registrar of Companies and insolvency proceedings are located, and consequential prosecution would arise. An affidavit filed by an SFIO officer at its Delhi headquarters does not establish Delhi as the central forum. On these factors, Mumbai was treated as the appropriate and convenient forum, and territorial jurisdiction was declined. en-us Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Sep 2026 16:50:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797883 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) remains discretionary even where an SFIO investigation order is issued from Delhi. The principal nexus may instead lie where the investigated companies maintain their registered offices and records, the relevant Registrar of Companies and insolvency proceedings are located, and consequential prosecution would arise. An affidavit filed by an SFIO officer at its Delhi headquarters does not establish Delhi as the central forum. On these factors, Mumbai was treated as the appropriate and convenient forum, and territorial jurisdiction was declined. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797883