Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition on Forum Issue

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling in favor of the respondents on the maintainability issue. The court held that the Bombay High Court was the appropriate forum based on the doctrine of forum conveniens and Section 42 of the PMLA, despite a part of the cause of action arising in Delhi. The petitioner was directed to seek relief in the Bombay High Court, with the interim protection extended for ten days for the petitioner to take further action.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition in the Delhi High Court.
2. Application of the doctrine of forum conveniens.
3. Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petition in the Delhi High Court:
The primary objection raised by the respondents was the maintainability of the petition in the Delhi High Court. The respondents argued that the petition should not be entertained as it would contravene the principles of forum conveniens and Section 42 of the PMLA. They cited the judgment of the Five Judges in M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. and other relevant cases to support their contention that the Bombay High Court was the appropriate forum since the property and the petitioner were based in Mumbai.

The petitioners countered this by highlighting that a part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi, as the adjudicating authority issuing the notice was based in Delhi. They relied on the judgment in J. Sekar v. Union of India & Ors., which supported the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court when a part of the cause of action arises within its territory.

2. Application of the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens:
The court examined the doctrine of forum conveniens, which allows a court to refuse jurisdiction if another forum is more appropriate for the case. The judgment in M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. was pivotal, stating that even if a part of the cause of action arises in a particular jurisdiction, the High Court may still refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction if another forum is more convenient.

The court also referred to the judgment in Vishnu Security Services, which clarified that while a writ petition could be maintainable in both the original and appellate jurisdictions, the doctrine of forum conveniens should be applied in extreme cases where one forum is significantly more convenient.

3. Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the PMLA:
Section 42 of the PMLA stipulates that appeals should be filed in the High Court where the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business. The respondents argued that since the petitioner and the property were based in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court was the appropriate forum for the appeal.

The court noted that while the notice under Section 8 of the PMLA was issued by an authority in Delhi, the substantial events and properties related to the case were in Mumbai. It was also observed that if an order was passed by the Appellate Authority, the appeal would lie in the Bombay High Court, making it the more convenient forum.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that despite a part of the cause of action arising in Delhi, the principle of forum conveniens favored the Bombay High Court due to the location of the petitioner and the property. The court decided not to entertain the writ petition and directed the petitioner to approach the Bombay High Court for appropriate relief. The interim protection granted was extended for ten days to allow the petitioner to seek further recourse.

Final Orders:
1. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Bombay High Court.
2. The interim order dated November 30, 2018, was extended for ten days.
3. The application for stay (CM. No. 48492/2018) was dismissed as infructuous.

---