Territorial writ jurisdiction depends on dominant facts, not a minor local nexus; forum conveniens may defeat entertainment.

Territorial writ jurisdiction cannot be assumed merely because the respondent has a presence in Delhi or a minor part of the cause of action arose there. Where the summons, ECIR and underlying FIR were all tied to Punjab, the dominant and material facts giving rise to the dispute lay outside Delhi, and the High Court could decline to entertain the petition on forum conveniens grounds. A small or incidental local nexus was insufficient to compel exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition was therefore not entertained on territorial grounds and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition should be entertained by the High Court when only a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction and the substantial factual foundation of the dispute lay outside Delhi.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction was not determined by the location of the respondent's head office alone. The summons, the ECIR, and the underlying FIR were all connected with Punjab, showing that the genesis of the controversy and the material facts giving rise to the grievance were outside Delhi. A small or incidental part of the cause of action within Delhi did not compel the Court to exercise writ jurisdiction, especially where the doctrine of forum conveniens applied and the dominant facts were elsewhere.

Conclusion: The petition was not entertained on territorial grounds and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere presence of a decision-making authority or a small part of the cause of action within the Court's territorial limits does not mandate exercise of writ jurisdiction where the dominant, material, and integral facts lie outside that territory, and the Court may decline to entertain the matter on the basis of forum conveniens.

---