2026 (4) TMI 230 - HC - IBC

Territorial writ jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on the dominant cause of action, and forum conveniens may justify refusal.

For Article 226 territorial jurisdiction, the mere fact that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, or that the respondent-authority and impugned ... Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 - situs of issuance of the impugned orders - Cause of Action - forum conveniens - functus officio - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) - Petitioner is residing in Kolkata, State of West Bengal, and is a registered Insolvency Professional engaged in professional assignments, CoC proceedings, and other related activities primarily in Kolkata - respondents are situated in Delhi, and the impugned Show Cause Notice and the suspension order were issued from its offices in Delhi. Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 - forum conveniens - part of cause of action - The writ petition was not liable to be entertained by the Delhi High Court merely because the show cause notice and disciplinary order were issued from Delhi. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that, although a part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi, that circumstance was not by itself determinative of territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the writ petition. Applying the principle in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. [2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] and following its own decision in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi [2026 (2) TMI 1397 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Court held that the situs of the respondent authority and issuance of the impugned order from Delhi are not the dominant or integral facts when the underlying events, professional activities, and relevant proceedings were centered outside Delhi. On that basis, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of forum conveniens and relegated the petitioner to the jurisdictional High Court. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] The petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue remedies before the jurisdictional High Court. Functus officio - interim relief after dismissal - HELD THAT: - The Court held that once the petition stood dismissed, no interim protection could thereafter be granted. It applied the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Mangal Rajendra Kamthe vs. Tahsildar, Purandhar & Ors [2026 (3) TMI 1055 - SC ORDER]. that, upon dismissal of the petition, the Court becomes functus officio. [Paras 15] The prayer for interim protection was declined. Final Conclusion: The Delhi High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, holding that the mere issuance of the impugned proceedings from Delhi did not justify exercise of jurisdiction when the substantive cause lay elsewhere, and relegated the petitioner to the jurisdictional High Court. The request for interim protection was also refused. Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained on the basis that a part of the cause of action arose within Delhi, and whether the Court should decline jurisdiction on the ground of forum conveniens.Analysis: The Court held that although some part of the cause of action arose within Delhi, that circumstance was not, by itself, determinative of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant consideration was the substance of the lis and the material, essential and integral facts giving rise to the dispute. Where the underlying events and operative injury were substantially connected outside Delhi, the mere location of the respondent-authority or the passing of the impugned order in Delhi did not justify entertaining the writ petition. The doctrine of forum conveniens could be invoked to decline exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction, and the petitioner was relegated to the jurisdictional High Court.Conclusion: The petition was not entertained in Delhi and was dismissed by declining to exercise territorial and discretionary writ jurisdiction.Final Conclusion: The ruling affirms that a writ petition cannot be maintained merely because the impugned order was issued in Delhi when the real and dominant cause of action lies elsewhere.Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Article 226, the mere situs of the respondent or the impugned order within the forum State is not decisive where the substantive and dominant facts arise outside that territory, and the Court may refuse to exercise writ jurisdiction on the ground of forum conveniens.