On 21 August 2025, the Bombay High Court re-iterated its earlier position reiterating that the customer should be in a position to show that the place he/she purchased is where territorial jurisdiction is to be determined, and not where he/she resides. The court rebuffed the contention that simple delivery of goods to a customer in Mumbai is enough to say that the plaintiff is carrying on business there. Jurisdiction should be anchored on where the sale was made or where the plaintiff carries business, both of which was in Navi Mumbai or in Raigad District and not in Mumbai city proper. The court thus restated that it did not have territorial jurisdiction, and issued the plaint to be returned according to Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC.