2026 (3) TMI 1535 - HC - Money Laundering

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. ... Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court - doctrine of forum conveniens - Cause of action - Essential and Integral Facts - substantial part of the underlying cause of action for the petition has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Territorial jurisdiction - Forum conveniens - Part of cause of action - The petition was not entertained by the Delhi High Court merely because the Head Office of the Enforcement Directorate was situated in Delhi and had approved the impugned communication, when the material and foundational facts of the controversy arose in Punjab. - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. [2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] has held that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The Court held that the location of the Head Office of the authority in Delhi, or the fact that approval for the impugned communication emanated from Delhi, was not by itself determinative of territorial jurisdiction. The summons was issued in connection with an investigation arising from an ECIR registered at Jalandhar and an FIR registered at Bathinda, and the petitioner had been summoned to appear before the authority situated in Jalandhar. These facts showed that the genesis and substantial part of the cause of action lay outside Delhi. Even assuming that a part of the cause of action arose within Delhi, the Court held that such fact did not compel it to entertain the writ petition on merits, and it could decline to exercise jurisdiction on the principle of forum conveniens where the dominant and integral facts arose elsewhere. [Paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court, and all rights and contentions were left open. Final Conclusion: The Court declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the dominant and material facts giving rise to the dispute were located outside Delhi. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court. 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.