SEBI settlement order revocation challenge dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction under forum conveniens

Delhi HC dismissed writ petitions challenging SEBI's revocation of settlement order, holding it lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court ruled that cause of action arose in Mumbai where SEBI issued the revocation order, not Delhi where appellants received it. Despite appellants residing in Delhi's jurisdiction, the court found no integral facts connecting the challenge to Delhi. Applying forum conveniens principles, Mumbai HC was deemed more appropriate as all SEBI proceedings occurred there since 2020, making it convenient for both parties and necessary for record examination.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Application of the principle of forum conveniens.
3. Material and integral facts constituting the cause of action.
4. Effect of the Impugned Revocation Order and SEBI's actions.

Summary:

Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The appeals challenged the judgment dismissing the writ petitions on the ground that the integral, essential, and material part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, not the Delhi High Court. The learned Single Judge held that even if a slender part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, it would not be appropriate to entertain the writ petitions applying the principles of forum conveniens.

Application of the principle of forum conveniens:
The Court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision, emphasizing that the principle of forum conveniens considers the convenience of all parties. The Appellants had been participating in proceedings at Mumbai since 2020, and the SEBI's actions, including the issuance of the Impugned Revocation Order, took place in Mumbai. Therefore, Mumbai was deemed the appropriate forum for the dispute.

Material and integral facts constituting the cause of action:
The Appellants argued that the receipt of the Impugned Revocation Order at their registered offices in New Delhi, the effect felt in New Delhi, and the pending writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 10756/2019) in the Delhi High Court constituted material facts for jurisdiction. However, the Court found these facts insufficient to constitute a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. The cause of action primarily arose in Mumbai, where SEBI's actions and the settlement process occurred.

Effect of the Impugned Revocation Order and SEBI's actions:
The Court noted that the Impugned Revocation Order led to the revival of SCN proceedings at Mumbai, which affected the Appellants. The material facts leading to the challenge of the Impugned Revocation Order were tied to SEBI's actions in Mumbai. Consequently, the effect of the order was felt in Mumbai, reinforcing the appropriateness of the Bombay High Court as the forum conveniens.

Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the learned Single Judge's decision that the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was the appropriate forum for the dispute, applying the principles of forum conveniens and considering the material and integral facts constituting the cause of action. The registered offices of the Appellants in New Delhi and the receipt of the Impugned Revocation Order in New Delhi were not deemed sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court.

---