Delhi HC declines jurisdiction over SEBI settlement revocation petitions, directs parties to Bombay HC

Delhi HC declined jurisdiction over writ petitions challenging SEBI's revocation of settlement agreements for minimum public shareholding violations. The court held that while Article 226(2) enables High Courts to issue writs against authorities located outside their territorial jurisdiction, the primary consideration remains where the cause of action arises. Since the settlement negotiations, finalization, and revocation decisions all occurred in Mumbai within SEBI's operations, the material cause of action arose within Bombay HC's jurisdiction. Applying forum conveniens principles, Delhi HC found Bombay HC to be the appropriate forum and dismissed the petitions, noting petitioners had previously approached Bombay HC for related matters.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction: Whether the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions.
2. Forum Non-Conveniens: Whether the principle of forum non-conveniens applies, necessitating the transfer of the case to another jurisdiction.

Summary:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The primary issue is whether the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. The petitioners argued that their registered offices and businesses are in Delhi, and they received the impugned order in Delhi. They also contended that SEBI and other respondents have offices in Delhi, and the effect of the impugned order is felt in Delhi. The petitioners further argued that the convenience of the petitioners should be a decisive factor, citing various Supreme Court judgments to support their claim.

However, the court noted that the entire genesis of the dispute lies in Mumbai, where the settlement application was filed, considered, and the settlement order was passed. The court emphasized that the material, integral, and essential part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, not Delhi. The court referred to various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, to highlight that the location of the respondent's office or the receipt of the order does not confer jurisdiction if the cause of action did not arise in that location.

2. Forum Non-Conveniens:
The court also considered the principle of forum non-conveniens, which allows a court to refuse to exercise jurisdiction if another forum is more appropriate for the case. The respondent-SEBI argued that the entire deliberation and decision-making process occurred in Mumbai, and the petitioners had actively participated in proceedings before the SEBI and the Bombay High Court. The court agreed, noting that the petitioners had already contested the matter before the Bombay High Court and that the major part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai. The court emphasized that the convenience of the petitioners is not the sole criterion for determining jurisdiction and that the broader perspective of access to justice should be considered.

Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions, concluding that the integral, essential, and material part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The court applied the principles of forum non-conveniens and determined that the Bombay High Court was the appropriate forum for the case. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court, and the Delhi High Court did not express any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case.

---