2026 (3) TMI 1535

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondent no. 2-Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement (ED), vide which, the petitioner has been summoned to give evidence with respect to an ongoing investigation. 2. The sole reason assigned by the petitioner for instituting the petition before this Court is that the Head Office of the ED is situated in New Delhi. The relevant paragraph of the petition is extracted below, for reference: "19. That the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Respondent Directorate of Enforcement has its Head Office at New Delhi, the impugned actions have been initiated from within the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Accordingly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es not preclude the Court from exercising its discretion not to entertain the petition, considering the entire facts of the case. 6. The Court, in case of Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2026:DHC:1605, more specifically, in paragraphs 36 to 38 has held as under: "36. A petitioner who approaches this Court to assail a decision of an authority situated in Delhi, when the underlying cause for the said decision lies elsewhere, effectively attempts to make this High Court a mini-pan-India Superior Court exercising jurisdiction over all events which take place throughout this Country. There is no gainsaying with the proposition that every High Court is competent to adjudicate upon a lis which arises from events....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e dispute in question. Any of the aforenoted three aspects could very well have taken place in another part of the Country, it is for the sole reason that Delhi is the national capital, that, in most cases these factors get connected to the jurisdiction of this Court. From another lens, it may be seen that regardless of what the underlying facts or legal injury/infringement may be, the order impugned would, in an overwhelming number of cases be passed from Delhi. If this be the case, can this constant 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." 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of I....