TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1397
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the Agra Court. C. Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice." 2. The facts of the case would indicate that the respondent no. 3 i.e. M/s. AV Valves Limited had filed a petition before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Uttar Pradesh qua an alleged claim of Rs. 33,49,322/-. An arbitral award was passed by the MSEFC, Agra, U.P. against the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the copy of the award was received by the petitioner on 26.11.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "Arbitration Act") read with Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 (hereinafter "MSMED Act") before the Commercial Court, Agra, U.P. 3. The petitioner seems to have deposited a sum of Rs. 14,07,254/- via RTGS as part of 75% of the award amount, in compliance with Section 193 of the MSMED Act. Subsequently, a recovery notice dated 21.07.2025 came to be issued by the Assistant Collector, Grade-I/SDM Kalkaji, Delhi, seeking to recover Rs. 46,24,862/- as arrears of land revenue (hereinafter "Impugned Notice"). It is, this notice, that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court has connection with the cause of action in question. Take the present case as an example. The vessel came into the Bombay Port. The dismantling work without the use of power would take place presumably at Bombay. The provisional assessment order was made ready at Bombay although it was finally made effective by serving it upon the petitioners in Calcutta. The relevant Customs departments and officials are all at Bombay. 13. Two High Courts therefore have jurisdiction to entertain a writ for the present grievances of the petitioners. The High Court at Bombay has jurisdiction and also this High Court. Is it to be left to the petitioner to choose which High Court he will go to? 14. Is it to be left to the petitioner to choose that High Court which has much less connection with the entire bundle of facts making up the cause of action of the writ if he thinks it will more suit his covenience? 15. The answers to both these questions must be in the negative. The wording of Article 226 of the Constitution of India itself clarifies that the High Court would have jurisdiction in case even a part only of the cause of action arise, within its local limits. But ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to entertain the lis, despite the order having been passed from Delhi. 10. Further, in New Horizons and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [1993 SCC OnLine Del 564 (DB).] which was also later relied upon in Kusum Ingots (supra), a Division Bench of this Court dealt with a factual matrix, where, a tender was issued for, inter alia, the making and delivery of a directory to respondent no. 3 located at Hyderabad, and respondent no. 4 a company situated in New Delhi, was declared the successful bidder. Assailing the said decision, a writ was filed in this High Court seeking quashing of the award of the contract to respondent no. 4, and a direction for the respondents to accept the petitioner's bid. While the Division Bench entertained the matter on grounds that substantial arguments were heard, it was, importantly, also observed that: "We could certainly have directed the petitioners to approach the Andhra Pradesh High Court which also has jurisdiction in the matter since the telephone directories were required for Hyderabad Telecom District and the contract was to be entered into there and the records were also maintained there in Hyderabad. We could decline to exercise juri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... By letters addressed to different agencies including the Steering Committee of ONGC in January/February 1993 from its registered office, NICCO made demands for justice." 13. While reversing the judgement of the Calcutta High Court, which had exercised jurisdiction on grounds that a part of cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court in strong words held as under: "12. ...Notwithstanding the strong observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decision and in the earlier decisions referred to therein, we are distressed that the High Court of Calcutta persists in exercising jurisdiction even in cases where no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. It is indeed a great pity that one of the premier High Courts of the country should appear to have developed a tendency to assume jurisdiction on the sole ground that the petitioner before it resides in or carries on business from a registered office in the State of West Bengal. We feel all the more pained that notwithstanding the observations of this Court made time and again, some of the learned Judges continue to betray that tendency. Only recently while disposing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the writ petition and importantly held: "The mere fact that the registered office of the appellant is in Delhi where the two communications dated 27.2.1996 and 22.7.1996 were received, will not be an integral part of cause of action for such a petition." [Emphasis supplied] 15. In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd., [(2002) 1 SCC 567] the writ petitioner had challenged the denial of benefits under an import-export scheme (hereinafter "Passport Scheme") before Gujarat High Court, which had entertained the writ petition, and the same was assailed before the Supreme Court. The different factual indicia, prima facie, appearing to favour the jurisdiction of different High Courts were: Facts supporting the jurisdiction of Gujarat High Court Facts supporting the jurisdiction of Madras HC 1. The petitioner carried out business of export and import from Ahmedabad; 1. Passbook in question was issued by an authority at Chennai; 2. Non-granting and denial of utilisation of the credit in the passbook was to affect the business at Ahmedabad. 2. Designated authority, which is the competent person in respect of matters concerning the Passbook Scheme is at Chennai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a "part of cause of action", nothing less than that." 19. The same principle was also upheld in the case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, [2011 SCC OnLine Del 1385] wherein, this Court ruled that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the doctrine of forum conveniens can be applied. Also, the Court observed that the situs of the authority passing the order impugned in a petition cannot be the sole determinative criteria requiring this Court to entertain a writ. Further, the Court laid down that the cause of action depends upon the factual matrix of each case and cannot be totally based on the situs of the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority while completely ignoring the concept of forum conveniens. In paragraph nos. 32 and 33 of the said decision, this Court held that: "32. The principle of forum conveniens in its ambit and sweep encapsulates the concept that a cause of action arising withi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... jurisdiction under Article 226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked in a malafide manner is too restricted/constricted as the exercise of power under Article 226 being discretionary cannot be limited or restricted to the ground of malafide alone. (f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinized by the High Court depending upon the factual matrix of each case in view of what has been stated in Ambica Industries (supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. (supra). (g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) "that since the original order merges into the appellate order, the place where the appellate authority is located is also forum conveniens" is not correct. (h) Any decision of this Court contrary to the conclusions enumerated hereinabove stands overruled." 20. In Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee, [(2008) 3 SCC 456] the Supreme Court, again, declared that merely because the head office of a given corporation is situated within the jurisdiction of given High Court would not confer jurisdiction about that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght of the aforenoted Clause 21 declined to its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming its jurisdiction had been ousted. The Supreme Court negativing this finding, in strong words, declared: "25. In the present case, the Bombay High Court has relied solely on Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws to hold that its own writ jurisdiction is ousted. The Bombay High Court has failed to examine the case holistically and make a considered determination as to whether or not it should, in its discretion, exercise its powers under Article 226. The scrutiny to be applied to every writ petition under Article 226 by the High Court is a crucial safeguard of the rule of law under the Constitution in the relevant territorial jurisdiction. It is not open to a High Court to abdicate this responsibility merely due to the existence of a privately negotiated document ousting its jurisdiction." [Emphasis supplied] 24. In the case of Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban Development Corp. [2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892] a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court has also dealt with the question of whether the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnoring the concept of forum conveniens in toto. Hence, even if a small part of the cause of action is established, and the same is found to be non integral or non-material to the lis, the court may invoke the doctrine of forum non-conveniens and decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction, if an alternative, more efficacious forum for the same exists. 93. A perusal of paragraph no. 10 of the decision in the case of State of Goa (supra), would signify that one of the prayers related to a challenge against the notification issued by the State of Sikkim. Also, in the said case, the petitioner company's office was also located in the State of Sikkim. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering that a slender part of the action has arisen, held that the High Court of Sikkim was not clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the major part of the cause of action has arisen in another High Court. It can be safely concluded that neither the notification issued by the concerned government, nor the location of the office were considered to be the material facts to determine the cause of action. *** 113. Merely because some of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conveniens for the both the parties is Mumbai. The Appellants since the year 2020 have been appearing in Mumbai before SEBI in the SCN proceedings. In W.P.(C) 15556/2023 (as well as the other writs) the writ petitioner has sought a direction for summoning the records of SEBI for examining the legality and validity of the Impugned Revocation Order. In these facts, therefore, the objection of SEBI that Mumbai is the forum conveniens for the parties has merit. The obligation of the Court to examine the convenience of all the parties has been expressly noted by the Full Bench of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. (supra)..." 27. Furthermore, in Riddhima Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education [2023 SCC OnLine Del 7168] a Division Bench of this Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that where only a small part of the cause of action arises in the territorial jurisdiction of a Court, the Court is obligated to follow the doctrine of forum conveniens. Importantly, relying on the Division Bench decision in Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urbam Development Corp.,[2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892] the Court declared that where the "most vital parts of the cause of action" ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to a miniscule part of the cause of action. ..." 28. Reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of H.S. Rai v. UoI & Anr., [W.P. (C) 700/2005, decision dated 30.08.2022] wherein, the issue of territorial jurisdiction was raised. In the said case, the petitioner therein belonged to the State of Jharkhand and assailed the order of the PDIL, Noida. This Court in the said decision as well while applying the doctrine of forum conveniens has held that since the material, essential and integral part of cause of action did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the petition was not maintainable. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision read as under: "27. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the power to issue writ is with respect to any person, authority or any Government which falls within the territory of a High Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court also extends to matters where the cause of action arises, whether wholly or in part. Hence, it is clear that the power to exercise writ jurisdiction has its own limitations. These limitations would also apply to the case at hand as it would to any other matter before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia Bulls Centrum Flat Owners Welfare Co-Operative Society, Hyderabad, LPA No. 744/2024, the Division Bench of this Court while deciding the question as to whether an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission can be challenged before this High Court or has to be challenged before the respective jurisdictional High Courts, the Division Bench of this Court held that when the foundational facts giving rise to the cause of action to the appellant to approach the Consumer Fora arose within the State of Telangana, it would be absurd to allow the petitions against orders of NCDRC to be filed only in High Court of Delhi, which would mean that a consumer who is agitating for his rights in far of places like Assam, Manipur or any other distant part of the country would have to necessarily travel to Delhi for such redressal, which cannot be allowed in view of the doctrine of "forum conveniens". 16. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5264, has held that in case of pan India Tribunals, or Tribunals/statutory....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry, including Tamil Nadu. Thus, the argument that National Medical Commission or Indian Nursing Council is based in Delhi is insufficient to justify the filing of a writ petition before this Court, especially when the cause of action has arisen, and the parties involved herein are located, in Tamil Nadu and have already approached the Courts situated in the State of Tamil Nadu and have contested and obtained orders from the said Courts." 32. This Court in Shri Siddhi Vinayak Medical College and Hospital Sambhal UP v. Union of India & Anr., [2024:DHC:7943] while deciding upon the contention as to whether the dominus litis has an indefeasible right to approach the forum of his/her choice where jurisdiction is conferred upon more than one forum by virtue of cause of action arising at different places, has held that the said liberty granted to the dominus litis is circumscribed by the judicial oversight which has to be undertaken in each case. The relevant paragraph of the discussion on the concept of dominus litis is reproduced as under: "22. It is thus safely fleshed out from the aforesaid discussion that as per the aforesaid doctrine, the petitioner's role as dominus lit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the territorial jurisdiction bearing in mind the overarching principle of comparative conveniens i.e., the Court must not only be satisfied that it is a non-convenient forum, rather it must also be reckoned that the other forum is more convenient. e. The doctrine of forum conveniens is applied to identify the most suitable forum for resolving a dispute, taking into account not only the convenience of the parties but also ensuring that the interests of justice are served. The question as to which would be the determinative or nondeterminative factors to be considered in arriving at a conclusion about the forum conveniens or non-conveniens, will depend upon the facts of each case. However, a standalone factor would not weigh in determining the same, rather a cumulative result of the bundle of facts having nexus to the lis deserve to be appreciated. The following illustrative aspects, though not exhaustive, may be borne in mind while determining the applicability of the principle of forum conveniens or non-conveniens:- i. The location of the parties; ii. The convenience of the parties; iii. The interest of other relevant stakeholders; iv. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... *** 62. It is pertinent to mention that as per the legislative intent and constitutional scheme enshrined under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is crystallised that the cardinal duty imposed on the constitutional courts is to prevent the abuse of their jurisdiction by the parties and relegate back the parties to the forum where a material, essential or integral part of cause of action has arisen." 35. From the conspectus of authorities detailed above, and the discussion of law contained therein, it can unequivocally be concluded that the writ remedy, which is, at its core, an extra-ordinary discretionary remedy exercisable by Constitutional courts, cannot be left to the mercy of the litigants' subjective will. The Court must, while adjudicating upon a writ petition, consider and account for the aspect of forum conveniens. This includes, not merely the conventional considerations of where the evidence, parties or their head offices are located; but also includes concerns pertaining to the conveniens of the Court, the administration of law and, most importantly, the dispensation of justice. 36. A petitioner who approaches this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstant factum, which shall remain present in each case, be considered a "dominant fact" or a "material, essential and integral" fact? The answer must be in the negative. 39. The scheme of the Constitution empowers every High Court to pass directions against any authority situated throughout the territory of India, if the cause of action wholly or in part arises within its territorial jurisdiction. If this Court were to routinely exercise jurisdiction solely on the ground that the order or notification being assailed has been passed in Delhi, or that the opportunity of hearing was given at the national capital, then the extraordinary power conferred upon different High Courts would be rendered nugatory and otiose. The purpose of conferring the aforenoted power on each and every High Court would stand defeated. 40. Another facet of this issue pertains to predictability and the rule of law. A citizen must know where to agitate his grievance. It cannot be a situation of laissez-faire, where for a given grievance which affects a number of individuals/corporations, part of them approach this Court on grounds that the order assailed has been passed within the jurisdiction of this C....