Sandipa & Anr. vs India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited & Ors.

$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010393822026
+ W.P.(C) 12241/2026
SANDIPA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. SS Panwar, Mr. Rajendra
Kamti and Ms. Divya Pulani,
Advs.

versus

INDIA SHELTER FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED &
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sushant Bali and Mr.
Sanjeev Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

JUDGMENT
CM APPL. 56804/2026
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12241/2026 & CM APPL. 56805/2026
3. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking, inter alia , quashing of the judgment and
final order dated 16.07.2026 passed by the learned Debts Recovery
Tribunal-II, Chandigarh (“DRT”) in S.A. No.232/2026, as also the
order dated 05.08.2026 passed by the learned Debts Recovery
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12241/2026 Page 1 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:18:21

Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (“DRAT”) in Regular Appeal No.223/2026,
whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioners came to be dismissed.
The Petitioners have also sought protection against the proceedings for
taking physical possession of the secured asset.
4. Briefly stated, Respondent No.1 had sanctioned a housing loan
of Rs.8,50,000/- to the Petitioners against the mortgage of their
residential property bearing House No.499, Gali No.8, Bhatta Colony,
Part-II, Near Rawat Tiles, Suriya Nagar, Phase-I, Sector-91,
Faridabad, Haryana (“secured asset”). The Petitioners contend that
only Rs.6,16,000/- was actually disbursed and disputes subsequently
arose regarding the loan account and the amount allegedly
outstanding.
5. Proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(“SARFAESI Act”) were thereafter initiated by Respondent No.1. The
Petitioners challenged, inter alia , the demand notice dated 13.04.2021
issued under Section 13(2), the possession notice dated 11.11.2021
issued under Section 13(4), the auction proceedings conducted on
28.09.2024, the valuation and reserve price of the secured asset, the
Sale Certificate dated 03.10.2024 and the subsequent proceedings for
taking physical possession.
6. The Petitioners continued to remain in physical possession of
the secured asset. Respondent No.1 thereafter invoked Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act and proceedings were undertaken before the
competent authority at Faridabad. An order dated 08.04.2026 was
passed by the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Faridabad,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12241/2026 Page 2 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:18:21

fixing 28.04.2026 for taking physical possession of the secured asset.
7. The Petitioners thereafter instituted S.A. No.232/2026 before
DRT-II, Chandigarh under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act
challenging the aforesaid measures. The learned DRT ultimately
dismissed the Securitisation Application by judgment and final order
dated 16.07.2026 on the ground of limitation. The Petitioners
preferred Regular Appeal No.223/2026 before the DRAT, Delhi,
which came to be dismissed by order dated 05.08.2026.

8. The Petitioners have now approached this Court contending that
the learned DRT erred in dismissing the Securitisation Application on
the ground of limitation without adjudicating the substantive
challenges raised by them and that the learned DRAT also failed to
correct the said error.
9. At the outset, a preliminary objection, as to the maintainability
of the present petition before this Court, has been raised by the
Respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the present
petition ought not to be entertained by this Court as the entire
substantive cause of action has arisen outside Delhi. It is submitted
that the secured asset is situated at Faridabad, Haryana; the
proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were undertaken
by the competent authority at Faridabad; the order concerning physical
possession was passed by the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive
Magistrate, Faridabad; the subsequent proceedings for taking physical
possession also emanate from Faridabad; and the original
Securitisation Application was instituted before DRT-II, Chandigarh.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12241/2026 Page 3 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:18:21

11. He further submits that merely because the statutory appeal was
heard and decided by DRAT, Delhi, the Petitioners cannot insist upon
the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court when the substantive lis has
its territorial nexus with Haryana and Chandigarh. It is contended that,
applying the doctrine of forum conveniens , the Petitioners ought to
approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.
12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, opposing the said objection,
submits that the impugned order dated 05.08.2026 was passed by
DRAT, Delhi and, therefore, a part of the cause of action has arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the
preliminary objection and perused the record.
14. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners is
concerned, there can be no quarrel with the proposition that where a
part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a
High Court, such High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article
226(2) of the Constitution of India. It is also not disputed that the
impugned order dated 05.08.2026 has been passed by the DRAT,
Delhi. However, the objection raised by the Respondents is not,
strictly speaking, to the existence of jurisdiction of this Court. The
objection is to the exercise of such jurisdiction, contending that,
having regard to the doctrine of forum conveniens and the factual
matrix of the present case, this Court ought not exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction and the Petitioners ought to approach the
Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.
15. The concept of forum conveniens is no longer res integra and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12241/2026 Page 4 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:18:21

was considered by the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.
v. Union of India & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254, wherein the Supreme
Court observed:
“Forum conveniens
30. We must, however, remind ourselves 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. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan
Jagbir Sawhney [AIR 1941 Cal 670 : ILR (1941) 1
Cal 490] , Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945) 49
CWN 357 : AIR 1949 Cal 495] , Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd.
[1997 CWN 122] , S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India
[(1994) 1 CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v.
Union of India [AIR 1994 Del 126] .]”

16. The aforesaid principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in
Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2007) 6 SCC
769. While considering the expression “cause of action” in the context
of Article 226(2), the Supreme Court held:
“41. Keeping in view the expression “cause of
action” used in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small
fraction thereof accrues within the jurisdiction of
the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the
matter though the doctrine of forum conveniens may
also have to be considered.
42. In Mussummat Chand Kour v. Partab
Singh [(1887-88) 15 IA 156] , it was held: (IA pp.
157-58)
“[T]he cause of action has no relation whatever to
the defence which may be set up by the defendant,
nor does it depend upon the character of the relief
prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the
grounds set forth in the plaint as the cause of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12241/2026 Page 5 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:18:21

action, or, in other words, to the media upon which
the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion
in his favour.”

17. The issue was thereafter considered authoritatively by a Full
Bench of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of
India & Ors., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162. The Full Bench, after
considering Kusum Ingots, Ambica Industries, Alchemist Ltd. &
Anr. v. State Bank of Sikkim & Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 335 and other
judgments, held:
“35. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are
inclined to modify the findings and conclusions of
the Full Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Union of India, AIR 2010 Delhi 43 ; [2011] 166 C-
C 87 (Delhi) and proceed to state our conclusions
in seriatim as follows:
(a) The finding recorded by the Full Bench
that the sole cause of action emerges at the
place or location where the
Tribunal/appellate authority/revisional
authority is situate and the said High Court
(i.e., Delhi High Court) cannot decline to
entertain the writ petition as that would
amount to failure of the duty of the court
cannot be accepted inasmuch as such a
finding is totally based on the situs of the
Tribunal/ appellate authority/revisional
authority totally ignoring the concept of
forum conveniens.
(b) Even if a minuscule part of cause of
action arises within the jurisdiction of this
court, a writ petition would be maintainable
before this court, however, the cause of
action has to be understood as per the ratio
laid down in the case of Alchemist Ltd. v.
State Bank of Sikkim (2007) 136 C-C 665 ;
(2007) 11 SCC 335.
(c) An order of the appellate authority
constitutes a part of cause of action to make
the writ petition maintainable in the High
Court within whose jurisdiction the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12241/2026 Page 6 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:18:21

appellate authority is situated. Yet, the same
may not be the singular factor to compel the
High Court to decide the matter on merits.
The High Court may refuse to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the
doctrine of forum conveniens.
(d) The conclusion that where the appellate
or revisional authority is located constitutes
the place of forum conveniens as stated in
absolute terms by the Full Bench is not
correct as it will vary from case to case and
depend upon the lis in question.
(e) The finding that the court may refuse to
exercise jurisdiction under article 226 if
only the jurisdiction is invoked in a mala
fide manner is too restricted/constricted as
the exercise of the power under article 226
being discretionary cannot be limited or
restricted to the ground of mala fide alone.
(f) While entertaining a writ petition, the
doctrine of forum conveniens and the nature
of cause of action are required to be
scrutinised by the High Court depending
upon the factual matrix of each case in view
of what has been stated in Ambica Industries
v. CCE (2007) 213 ELT 323 ; [2009] 20
VST 1 (SC) and Union of India v. Adani
Exports Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 567.
(g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of
the Full Bench in New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2010 Delhi 43 ;
(2011) 166 C-C 87 (Delhi) (page 115) :".. .
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.”

18. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, this Court
finds that the dispute has its principal territorial nexus with Haryana
and Chandigarh. The secured asset is situated at Faridabad, Haryana,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12241/2026 Page 7 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:18:21

and the SARFAESI proceedings relate to enforcement of the security
interest over the said property. The Petitioners’ grievance regarding
taking of physical possession also arises in respect of the same
property. The proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act
were undertaken before the competent authority at Faridabad, and the
order dated 08.04.2026 fixing the date for taking physical possession
was passed by the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate,
Faridabad. The subsequent notice dated 30.07.2026 directing the
Petitioners to vacate the secured asset was also issued by the same
authority. The original Securitisation Application under Section 17 of
the SARFAESI Act was instituted before DRT-II, Chandigarh, and the
order passed therein was carried in appeal before the DRAT, Delhi.
Thus, the secured asset, the proceedings for taking its possession, the
original proceedings before the DRT and the actions of the authorities
under challenge are all connected with Haryana and Chandigarh. The
only substantial connection of the present dispute with Delhi is the
passing of the appellate order by the DRAT, Delhi.
19. The passing of the appellate order by the DRAT may constitute
a part of the cause of action for the purposes of Article 226(2) of the
Constitution. However, the existence of territorial jurisdiction does
not, by itself, require this Court to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction. The appellate order cannot be considered independently
of the proceedings from which the appeal arose. The substantive
dispute concerns enforcement of security over an immovable property
situated in Faridabad and proceedings originating before DRT-II,
Chandigarh.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12241/2026 Page 8 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:18:21

20. This Court is conscious that the Petitioners, as dominus litis ,
may choose a forum where part of the cause of action has arisen,
however, such choice is subject to the discretion of the Court under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In determining whether to
exercise such jurisdiction, the Court may consider the location of the
subject matter, the situs of the original proceedings, the authorities
whose actions are under challenge and the place where the material
facts have arisen. In the present case, these factors clearly point
towards the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh as the
more appropriate forum.
21. Furthermore, it is also imperative to note that the learned
counsel for the Petitioners have relied upon the case of Srishti
Arogyadham Pvt. Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr., 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 12716; Order dated 01.09.2022 passed in W.P.(C) 12281
of 2019 titled as DECO Industries (INDIA) vs. JM Financial Assets
Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Order dated 08.10.2025 passed in
W.P.(C) Shivansh Associates vs. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.,
to contend that this Court has entertained petitions in similar
circumstances. These decisions, however, do not advance the
Petitioners’ case, as the question of territorial jurisdiction or the
applicability of the doctrine of forum conveniens was neither raised
nor considered in those proceedings. They, therefore, cannot be relied
upon as decisions on the issue presently before this Court.
22. In view of the aforesaid, although the impugned order passed by
the DRAT, Delhi gives rise to a part of the cause of action within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the facts of the present case do not
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12241/2026 Page 9 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:18:21

warrant exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. The principal and
substantial connection of the dispute is with Haryana and Chandigarh.
This Court, therefore, declines to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on the ground of forum
conveniens .
23. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the
Petitioners to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh, in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any,
also stand disposed of.


VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J

RENU BHATNAGAR, J
AUGUST 21, 2026/kp
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12241/2026 Page 10 of 10

Signed By:NEHA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:18:21