Anuj Goyal vs Nbcc (India) Limited & Anr.

$~103
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6318/2026 and CM APPL. 30980/2026, CM APPL.
30981/2026
Date of Decision: 11.05.2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

ANUJ GOYAL
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Kunal
Sachdeva and Mr. Lakshay Yadav,
Advocates.

versus

NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Mr. Mirza Amir
Baig, Mr. A.Wahid Mashaal,
Advocates for R-2.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petition is for the following reliefs:
“ A. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to Respondent No. 1 NBCC (India) Limited directing it to
forthwith cause the execution of the Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA) in the
format as may be approved by this Court or as may be mutually agreed,
between the Petitioner/Petitioner's nominees/sub-allottees and the Court
Appointed Receiver/NBCC, without further delay or conditions, and/or
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.05.2026
14:13:49
W.P.(C) 6318/2026 Page 1 of 8

B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to Respondent No. 2 UCO Bank directing it to forthwith provide
to the Petitioner certified copies of the bank account statements of the
designated Supreme Court monitored account titled "Receiver Amp New
Unit Sale of Golf Homes Phase II" for the period from June 2025 to date,
and further to provide monthly statements on a regular basis, and/or
C. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to Respondent No. 1, NBCC (India) Limited directing it to
forthwith provide the Petitioner with a fully constructed and finished
Sample Flat (3BHK and 4BHK), gallery space and site office at the Aspire
Golf Homes (Phase-II) project site, within a fixed timeline to be
determined by this Court, and/or
D. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to Respondent No. 1 NBCC (India) Limited restraining it from
floatingany Channel Partner tenders, sub-auction notices or small lot
tenders for the inventory comprised in the 2 towers namely Ganga and
Saraswati retained with Respondent No.1, or from engaging or permitting
any Channel Partners to market or sell units from the said 2 towers,
thereby creating unfair competition with the Petitioner, and/or
E. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to Respondent No. 1 NBCC (India) Limited directing it to ensure
that construction at the Aspire Golf Homes (Phase-II) project strictly
follows the approved "list of makes" and "schedule of finishes" as per the
tender/project specifications, to permit the Petitioner to appoint an
independent third-party quality control agency to monitor construction
quality, and to undertake forthwith rectification of the identified
deficiencies including concrete leaks and substandard structural elements,
and/or
F. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to Respondent No. 1 NBCC (India) Limited and/or the Court
Appointed Receiver directing that the amount of Rs. 1,30,84,73,835/-
(Rupees One Hundred Thirty Crores Eighty-Four Lakhs Seventy-Three
Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Five) being the balance amount of the
forfeited EMD of M/s Mansan Builders Private Limited and as specifically
referred to and assigned by Mansan Builders Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated
20.01.2026 be forthwith credited towards the Petitioner's payment account
under the LOI dated 14.07.2025, thereby reducing the Petitioner's
outstanding payment liability by the said amount, and/or
G. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing the Show Cause Notice dated 20.03.2026 issued by the
Court Appointed Receiver, insofar as it threatens cancellation of the LOI
dated 14.07.2025 and forfeiture of the amounts deposited by the
Petitioner, as the said notice is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.05.2026
14:13:49
W.P.(C) 6318/2026 Page 2 of 8

Constitution, violative of the principles of natural justice, and has been
issued without taking into account the Respondent No. 1's own reciprocal
obligations and defaults, and/or
H. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing Respondent No. 1, NBCC (India) Limited, to forthwith
frame, notify and implement a clear, transparent and time-bound
procedure/guidelines for transfer of flats from the first allottee to
subsequent allottees, as contemplated under the tender document, so as to
prevent further prejudice to the Petitioner and bona fide allottees.
I. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the Respondent No.1 to permit branding of the project
as “FABLUXE / Forbes Global Properties”
J. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing Respondent No. 1, NBCC (India) Limited, to respond
to all written communications, emails and representations submitted by
the Petitioner within a fixed and reasonable time frame, preferably within
7 days, and to ensure timely and effective coordination on all operational
and contractual issues, so as to prevent disruption in communication and
to facilitate smooth execution of the tender obligations.
K. Pass such other and further orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case .”
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to have successfully
purchased 1,233 residential units across nine towers of the project „Aspire
Golf Homes‟ (Phase-II), situated at Sector-4, Greater Noida (West), Uttar
Pradesh, through a bulk e-auction conducted on 27.06.2025 by respondent
No.1, NBCC (India) Limited. The total consideration is stated to be Rs.
2,640,11,56,740/-. A Letter of Intent („ LoI ‟) dated 14.07.2025 also seems to
have been issued in favour of the petitioner by the Court Appointed
Receiver.
3. The petitioner contends that despite having made cumulative
payments exceeding Rs. 700 Crores, which is far ahead of several payment
milestones, and even before the sale of a single flat, respondent No.1 has
committed various breaches and omissions. The petitioner has precisely
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.05.2026
14:13:49
W.P.(C) 6318/2026 Page 3 of 8

formulated the points of challenge in his petition which are extracted as
under:
“ (a) failed and refused to execute the Builder Buyer Agreement (“BBA”),
(b) failed to provide a Sample Flat and gallery space at the project site,
(c) allowed use of inferior quality construction material at the site
contrary to approved specifications,
(d) float arbitrary Channel Partner tenders for the same inventory in
direct competition with the Petitioner,
(e) failed to credit the Rs. 130 Crores (Mansan Builders debit note)
towards the Petitioner's account,
(f) failed to permit branding of the project as “FABLUXE / Forbes Global
Properties”
(g) failed to clearly set out and follow a proper, simple and time-bound
process for transferring flats from the first buyer to another buyer, as
already allowed under the tender ”
4. Mohit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently
argued that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ
petition. He has drawn the attention of this Court to certain clauses of the
Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) to submit that the pre-bid meeting and the
submission of documentation took place within the jurisdiction of this Court.
He has also pointed out that the designated bank account, where all
payments are required to be deposited, is maintained with UCO Bank at its
Supreme Court Branch, Tilak Marg, New Delhi, which is also within the
territorial limits of this Court. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision
1
of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India , and
various other judgments to contend that even if a part of the cause of action
has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court can entertain the
writ petition.
5. Mr. Chaudhary is correct in arguing that a petition before this Court

1
(2011) SCC OnLine Del 4274.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.05.2026
14:13:49
W.P.(C) 6318/2026 Page 4 of 8

shall be maintainable if a part of cause of action has arisen within the
jurisdiction of this Court. There is no cavil with the said position of law.
Thus, the authorities relied upon by Mr. Chaudhary may not be gone into.
However, the decision of this Court rests upon principles, inter alia ,
concerning the writ jurisdiction being inherently discretionary as also the
settled principles of forum conveniens .
6. A perusal of the above-narrated facts reveal that the LoI was issued in
relation to the Project situated at Greater Noida (West), Uttar Pradesh. The
alleged breaches, failure in executing the BBAs, failure to provide sample
flats, use of inferior construction material, and the Show Cause Notice
purportedly “ threatening ” forfeiture, all pertain to the said Project. Notably,
all these actions have taken place in Uttar Pradesh.
7. The two-fold reason to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court is that
respondent No.1, NBCC (India) Limited, is situated within the jurisdiction
of this Court, and that the designated UCO Bank account is maintained in its
Supreme Court Branch in Delhi.
2
8. This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi ,
took note of the decisions in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. (supra), Shristi
3
Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban Development Corp. , Riddhima
4
Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education , Smt. Manjira Devi
Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital v. Uttarakhand University of
5
Ayurveda and Ors. , Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v.

2
2026:DHC:1605.
3
2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892.
4
2023 SCC OnLine Del 7168.
5
2024:DHC:6903-DB
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.05.2026
14:13:49
W.P.(C) 6318/2026 Page 5 of 8

6
National Medical Commission and Ors. , which declare that the situs of the
head office/registered office of the respondent, does not determine whether
the Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition.
9. The Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. importantly noted, at para. 36:
“ 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 or actions taking place within its territory. Merely because the
ultimate order, which is based on events taking place outside Delhi and
takes cognizance of actions outside of Delhi, is passed within the
jurisdiction of this Court, a writ petition ought not be entertained by this
Court. ”
10. On the issue of a claimant approaching this Court on the sole-ground
of the respondent-authority being situated within the jurisdiction of this
Court, it was observed at para. 37-38:

“ 37. Naturally, being the capital of the Country, various authorities and
bodies having pan-India jurisdiction would be located within the
jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because the decision making authority
happens to be in Delhi, ought not to be the sole reason to entertain a lis in
this Court. The decision, no doubt, may be passed in the national capital,
but it is usually against persons situated outside Delhi; and even more
importantly, for actions which took place beyond the borders of this Court.
The act of giving a hearing in Delhi, or the passing of an order in Delhi, is
merely a result of a body/authority being situated in the national capital, it
has nothing to do with the lis, the offending action, the legal injury or the
foundational facts on the basis of which action is being taken.
38. The case-law cited above, makes repeated reference to “dominant
facts”, and facts which are “material, essential and integral” to the lis in
question. In most cases, the fact that the order is passed, or the head office
is located, or that opportunity of hearing was afforded, within the
jurisdiction of this Court is completely immaterial, non-essential, and non-
integral to the dispute in question. Any of the aforenoted three aspects could

6
2024:DHC:7146.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.05.2026
14:13:49
W.P.(C) 6318/2026 Page 6 of 8

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. ”
11. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the substance of a matter must be
adjudged, and not the unchanging constant which is present in every petition
against a state-authority, to arrive at a conclusion on whether to entertain a
petition in the context of territorial jurisdiction and forum non conveniens .
At para. 42 this Court observed:
“ 42. It is the substance of the matter which the Court must consider in
determining the connection with Delhi. An order being passed by an
authority in Delhi is an unchanging constant. This static/uniform facet,
which is unmoved by the nature of the lis, ought not to determine where
territorial jurisdiction would lie. ”
12. The fact that respondent No.1, NBCC (India) Limited, is situated
within the jurisdiction of this Court, and that the designated UCO Bank
account is maintained in its Supreme Court Branch in Delhi, are merely
incidental and ancillary facts which arise out of the project which is situated
in Uttar Pradesh. The material, integral and essential part of the cause of
action has, thus, arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
13. There may, however, be a part of cause of action which has arisen in
Delhi. The same should not be the sole reason to entertain the instant
petition. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v.
7
Union of India and Anr. , has held that even if a small part of the cause of
action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.05.2026
14:13:49
W.P.(C) 6318/2026 Page 7 of 8

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 material portion of the
afore-noted decision reads as under:
“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] .] ”

14. In view of the above, petition stands dismissed. Liberty is, however,
granted in favour of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court
to agitate the instant lis , if so advised.
15. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MAY 11, 2026
aks/abh

7
(2004) 6 SCC 254.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.05.2026
14:13:49
W.P.(C) 6318/2026 Page 8 of 8