Forum conveniens may override territorial maintainability when the balance of convenience points to a more appropriate Bench.

A writ petition may be maintainable at a Bench where part of the cause of action arose, yet the court can still decline to entertain it if another forum is more appropriate on convenience grounds. In a RERA-related dispute connected to a Nagpur project, the Bombay High Court considered territorial jurisdiction, the location of the project, agreement and payment records, the purchaser's residence, and the relative hardship to the parties. It treated maintainability and forum convenience as distinct inquiries and applied the doctrine of forum conveniens to prefer the Nagpur Bench. The matter was therefore not to proceed at the Principal Seat and was directed for consideration of transfer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition, though maintainable at the Principal Seat because part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, ought to be entertained there or returned/transferred to the Nagpur Bench on the ground of forum conveniens.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a RERA proceeding concerning a project situated at Nagpur, while the Authority and Appellate Tribunal were located at Mumbai. The existence of territorial jurisdiction at the Principal Seat was not treated as conclusive; the Court applied the doctrine of forum conveniens and examined the balance of convenience, the location of the project, the agreement, the payment transactions, the residence of the flat purchaser, and the hardship likely to be caused to the parties. The statutory scheme under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the Appellate Side Rules was considered along with the principle that maintainability and convenience are distinct inquiries. On the facts, the Nagpur Bench was found to be the more appropriate forum.

Conclusion: The objection of the respondent was upheld and the petition was not to be entertained at the Principal Seat; it was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of transfer to the Nagpur Bench.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to proceed with the matter at the Principal Seat and treated convenience of the respondent as decisive in choosing the proper forum for further hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where a writ petition is maintainable because part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of a Bench, the Court may refuse to exercise discretion and direct the matter to the more appropriate forum if the balance of convenience and forum non conveniens so require.

---