2024 (11) TMI 602 - HC - Indian Laws

Contractor's challenge to medical college construction dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and forum shopping

Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Medical Commission And Ors and The Indian Nursing Council And Ors.

Delhi HC dismissed petitions challenging construction of medical college in Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu, filed by contractor against trust. Court held it ... Construction of buildings for a proposed medical college located in Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu - cause of action - Jurisdiction of High Court - forum shopping - Direction to the Respondents to refrain from granting any permission, recognition or approval to the proposed nursing college to be established by St. Alphonsa Trust on the Subject Properties - cancellation/revocation of any permission, recognition or approval already granted to the said proposed nursing college - conducting an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the grant of Essentiality Certificate dated 14.06.2024 to St. Alphonsa Trust - taking any action on the Essentiality Certificate - HELD THAT:- Both the petitioner and the respondent Trust are situated in Tamil Nadu, and the properties in question are also located there. The cause of action, including the petitioner’s claims for unpaid amounts and subsequent arbitration proceedings, arise out of events which took place in Tamil Nadu. Further, the orders relating to the property in dispute, including the attachment order and the arbitral award, have all been passed by the District Court in Nagercoil and the Madras High Court. The petitioner has previously approached these Courts for relief, and the orders passed by them directly pertain to the property in question and the execution of the arbitral award. Thus, there is no justification for invoking the jurisdiction of this High Court when the Courts in Tamil Nadu have already been seized of the matter and have issued relevant orders. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2013 (11) TMI 1800 - DELHI HIGH COURT], has held that in case of pan India Tribunals, or Tribunals/statutory authorities having jurisdiction over several States, the situs of the Tribunal would not necessarily be the marker for identifying the jurisdictional High Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that the ground on which the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondents, including Tamil Nadu Medical Council and Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, to restrain them from granting any permission to St. Alphonsa Trust (situated in Tamil Nadu) to start nursing and medical college on the properties situated at Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu, is the pendency of civil disputes in the courts of Tamil Nadu between the petitioner and the Trust. The petitioner previously has already invoked the jurisdiction of High Court of Madras for seeking similar reliefs - the petitioner herein has engaged in forum shopping by seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court after having withdrawn petitions from the appropriate forum in Tamil Nadu. Such conduct, where the petitioner attempts to choose a forum favorable to them after having already approached the appropriate forum, cannot be condoned. The present petitions along with pending application stand dismissed solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, alongwith a total cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. 25,000/- in each petition), to be deposited with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within two weeks. Issues Involved:1. Territorial Jurisdiction2. Forum Shopping3. Suppression of Material Facts4. Validity of Permissions and AttachmentsIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Territorial Jurisdiction:The primary issue was whether the Delhi High Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. The court noted that the entire cause of action occurred in Tamil Nadu, involving parties and properties located there. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within a jurisdiction, it does not compel the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction. The court also cited State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd., stressing that the material facts must constitute a cause empowering the High Court to decide the dispute. The court concluded that the mere presence of the National Medical Commission's head office in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction, as the cause of action arose entirely in Tamil Nadu.2. Forum Shopping:The court addressed the issue of forum shopping, where the petitioner, after being unsuccessful before the Madras High Court, approached the Delhi High Court. The court found this conduct unacceptable, noting that the petitioner had previously filed similar petitions in Tamil Nadu, which were withdrawn without any recorded liberty to file fresh petitions elsewhere. The court emphasized that such conduct, attempting to choose a favorable forum, cannot be condoned.3. Suppression of Material Facts:The respondents argued that the petitioner suppressed material facts, including the issuance of permissions to the Kanyakumari Medical Mission Research Centre, which were pivotal to the relief sought. The court found merit in this argument, noting that the petitioner failed to disclose these facts to the Delhi High Court, despite having made submissions before the Madras High Court. The court held that this suppression warranted dismissal of the petition.4. Validity of Permissions and Attachments:The petitioner contended that the permissions granted to St. Alphonsa Trust were based on fraudulent applications and should be quashed due to an operative attachment order. However, the court noted that the Madras High Court had stayed the attachment order, and thus, the ground for seeking directions against the respondents was not tenable. The court emphasized that the civil disputes were already being addressed in Tamil Nadu courts, and the petitioner had previously sought similar reliefs there.Conclusion:The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, forum shopping, and suppression of material facts. The court imposed costs on the petitioner and granted liberty to approach the appropriate court in Tamil Nadu for redressal. The judgment emphasized the principles of territorial jurisdiction, the doctrine of forum conveniens, and the importance of full disclosure in legal proceedings.