The central legal point established is that the High Court's territorial jurisdiction should be determined based on the significant connection of the cause of action to the chosen Court, as well as the provisions of Section 35 of FEMA 1999.

1. This Writ Petition assails the Order dated 17.7.2008 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, Janpath, New Delhi. The contention of the Petitioner is that the rules of natural justice have been violated inasmuch as the Petitioner was not permitted to cross-examine the sole witness on the basis of whose testimony orders adverse to the interests of the Petitioner had been passed by the Special Director of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Mumbai.

2. A Preliminary Objection has been raised by learned counsel for the Respondent to the effect that if the Petitioner is desirous of filing a writ petition or even an Appeal, the High Court holding territorial jurisdiction in the matter would be the Bombay High Court where the Petitioner resides and carries on his vocation, where the entire cause of action has arisen and where the adjudication has taken place. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, relies on the situs of the Appellate Tribunal, Foreign Exchange being in Delhi. We are of the view that the Preliminary Objection is well-founded.

3. The position is analogous to that of the Union Government. The statement that the Union Government is located throughout every part of Indian territory and hence can be sued in any Court of the country, brooks no cavil. This does not, however, inexorably lead to the consequence that a litigant can pick and choose between any Court as per his caprice and convenience. Generally speaking, some part, nay, the significant part of the cause of action should have arisen within the territorial sway of the Court which is chosen by the Petitioner. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. -vs- Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2321 clarifies the law on these lines, as is evident from the following paragraphs thereof:- When an order, however, is passed by a Court or Tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of original authority merges with that of the appellate authority. ...... We must, however, remind ourselves 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. (See Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhany, AIR 1941 Cal 670; Mandal Jalal v. Madanlal, (1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. M/s. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997) CWN 122;

S. S.Jain and Co. and another v. Union of India and others (1994) CHN 445; M/s. New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 126). 4. Various Division Benches of the Delhi High Court, inter alia, in Suraj Woolen Mills -vs- Collector of Customs, Bombay, 2000 (123) E.L.T. 471 (Del.), Bombay Snuff Pvt. Ltd. -vs- Union of India, 2006 (194)

E.L.T. 264 (Del.) and Commissioner of Central Excise -vs- Technological Institute of Textile, 1998 (47) DRJ 667(DB) have clarified that the High Court should not exercise jurisdiction only because the Tribunal whose order is in appeal before it, is located within its territorial boundaries. In Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta -vs- CIT, (1978) 113 ITR 817 and Birla Cotton and Spinning Mills Ltd. -vs- CIT, Rajasthan, (1980) 123 ITR 354 this Court declined to exercise jurisdiction because both the assesses resided and carried on business outside Delhi. On a reading of Article 226 (1) of the Constitution it will be palpably clear that without the next foll