TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m, Advs. JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners, all residents of Gurugram, Haryana, have filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs: "i. Call for records and issue order/ direction or writ in the nature Certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the search and seizure proceedings (including panchnama & search authorization no. 80/2025 dated 18.12.2025) conducted by ED on 19.12.2025 and 20.12.2025 at the residence of the petitioner to be illegal and unlawful; ii. Call for records and issue order/ direction or writ in the nature Certiorari or any other writ thereby quashing and setting aside OA no. 29/2026 and "reasons to believe" u/s 8(1) of PMLA issued by adjudicating autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said search, certain movable properties of the petitioners were seized. The said properties were sought to be retained by the ED, and thus, under Section 17(4) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA"), an application was moved by the ED before the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioners, subsequently, received a show cause notice along with the "reasons to believe" under Section 8(1) of the PMLA from the Adjudicating Authority. 5. In the interregnum, the ED, had also issued, inter alia, summons dated 21.08.2025, 24.08.2025, 27.08.2025, and 08.10.2025, from its Zonal Office, Gurugram, calling upon the petitioners to join investigation. 6. Thereafter, it is stated that on 19.12.2025 to 20.12.2025 the ED carried out a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Technology Services India (P) Ltd. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2345., and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254., each of the said decisions have been considered by this Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi 2026:DHC:1605., where after also considering the decisions in Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban Development Corp. 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892., Riddhima Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7168., Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital v. Uttarakhand University of Ayurveda and Ors. 2024:DHC:6903-DB, Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Medical Commission and Ors. 2024:DHC:7146., it was held that that the situs of the head ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt. The decision, no doubt, may be passed in the national capital, but it is usually against persons situated outside Delhi; and even more importantly, for actions which took place beyond the borders of this Court. The act of giving a hearing in Delhi, or the passing of an order in Delhi, is merely a result of a body/authority being situated in the national capital, it has nothing to do with the lis, the offending action, the legal injury or the foundational facts on the basis of which action is being taken. 38. The case-law cited above, makes repeated reference to "dominant facts", and facts which are "material, essential and integral" to the lis in question. In most cases, the fact that the order is passed, or the head office is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." 13. In the facts of the instant case, there may be a part of cause of action which has arisen in Delhi, however, the same should not be the sole reason to entertain the instant petition. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254., has held that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The material portion of the aforenoted decision reads as under: "Fo....