Vishwa Samudra Kannur Expressway Private Limited vs National Highways Authority Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

$~137 & 143
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 5212/2026 and CM APPL. 25493-25494/2026
Date of Decision: 20.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
VISHWA SAMUDRA KANNUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE
LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Nilava Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Kumar
Shashwat Singh Sawno, Ms. Nikhat
Jamal, Ms. Surabhi Rana, Mr. Harsh
Parakh, Mr. Ashutosh Chaudhary,
Advs.

versus

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar with Mr. Adithya
Ramani and Mr. Ritik Dwivedi,
Advocates for NHAI.

W.P.(C) 5237/2026 and CM APPL. 25597-25598/2026

VISHWA SAMUDRA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. DS Parmar, Mr. Nilava
Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Kumar
Shashwat Singh Sawno, Ms. Nikhat
Jamal, Ms. Surabhi Rana, Mr. Harsh
Parakh & Mr. Ashutosh Chaudhary,
Advs.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.04.2026
14:17:52
W.P.(C) 5212/2026 Page 1 of 8

versus

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar with Mr. Adithya
Ramani and Mr. Ritik Dwivedi,
Advocates for NHAI.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. These writ petitions are for setting aside show-cause notices dated
04.02.2026 and 06.02.2026 and the consequential communication dated
13.04.2026 issued by the National Highways Authority of India („ NHAI ‟),
whereby, the petitioners have been debarred from participating in NHAI
projects for a period of one year, and penalty has been imposed.
2. The impugned communication arises out of the contracts dated
08.02.2021 and 31.03.2021 executed between NHAI and the petitioners,
with respect to „Six Laning of Thaliparamba to Muzhapilangad Section of
NH-17 (New NH-66) from Ch.137+900 to Ch. 170+600 under Bharatmala
Pariyojna in the State of Kerala on Hybrid Annuity Mode‟.
3. It appears that Show Cause Notices dated 04.02.2026 and 13.04.2026
(“ Impugned SCNs ”) were issued to the petitioner on the basis of certain
inspections undertaken by the respondents, contending, inter alia , that the
petitioner “ has failed to carry out the construction activities in accordance
with the standards and specifications and the codal provisions ”, and that “ it
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.04.2026
14:17:52
W.P.(C) 5212/2026 Page 2 of 8

is evident that the performance of the ground improvement works executed
in the stretch from Ch. 146+100 to Ch. 150+600 is not satisfactory and does
not conform to the expected performance requirements, thereby raising
serious concerns regarding safety, serviceability and long-term stability of
the embankment and associated structure. ”
4. The Impugned SCNs seem to have culminated into the order dated
13.04.2026, whereby, the petitioner was debarred for a period of 1 year and
a penalty equivalent to 5% of the Current Value of the failed works or 0.5
percent of the Contract Value of the whole work, whichever is higher, was
imposed. The said order, was rendered on the basis of the following
conclusion reached by the respondent-authority:
“6.2. The Authority is of the considered view that the defences raised are
untenable and that the defective construction and lapses have caused major
structural failure and put the project completion in jeopardy. The Authority
has also taken into consideration the safety implications of the distress for
the emba n kment and associated structures, and the need to ensure
accountability and adherence to standards in execution of National Highway
Infrastructure Projects. ”

5. Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Mr. Kholi, learned senior counsel on behalf
of the petitioners, submit that the entire grievance of the petitioner is with
respect to its debarment by NHAI, and therefore, the entire cause of action
has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. In order to substantiate his
submission he places reliance on the decisions passed by the Division Bench
1
of this Court in Subodh Chandra Saha v. Punjab National Bank and Anr. ,
and M/s Vedanta Ltd. v. Nominated Authority Ministry of Coal, Govt. Of
2
India and Ors.

1
LPA 134/2026, order dt. 17.03.2026.
2
2026:DHC:3006-DB.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.04.2026
14:17:52
W.P.(C) 5212/2026 Page 3 of 8

6. The sole reason to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court appears to be
that the respondent i.e., the NHAI is situated within the jurisdiction of this
Court.
3
7. This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi ,
took note of the decisions in Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban
4
Development Corp. , Riddhima Singh v. Central Board of Secondary
5
Education , Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital v.
6
Uttarakhand University of Ayurveda and Ors. , Michael Builders and
7
Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Medical Commission and Ors. , which
declare that the situs of the head office/registered office of the respondent,
does not determine whether a Court ought has the requisite territorial
jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition.
8. 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. ”
9. On the issue of a claimant approaching this Court on the sole-ground
of the respondent-authority, an arm of the union government, being situated
within the jurisdiction of this Court, it was observed at para. 37-38:

3
2026:DHC:1605.
4
2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892.
5
2023 SCC OnLine Del 7168.
6
2024:DHC:6903-DB
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.04.2026
14:17:52
W.P.(C) 5212/2026 Page 4 of 8

“ 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
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. ”
10. 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. ”

7
2024:DHC:7146.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.04.2026
14:17:52
W.P.(C) 5212/2026 Page 5 of 8

11. In the facts of the instant case, the project undertaken by the petitioner
herein was in Kerala i.e., outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The
inspections conducted by NHAI also concerned the said project, the
deficiency highlighted in the Impugned SCNs concerned acts/omissions of
the petitioner concerning the execution of the project in Kerala. It is,
therefore, clear as day, that the material, essential and integral part of the
cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
12. In M/s Vedanta Ltd. (supra), to support the entertainability of the
petition before this Court, the following was submitted before the Division
Bench:
“... Vedanta will be precluded from filing any writ petition before this
Court despite the fact that entire cause of action including conduct of
auction, acceptance of bid, allocation of coal block, execution of CMDPA,
issuance of Vesting Order, issuance of Show Cause Notice, submission of
reply to the Show Cause Notice, proceedings held by the Scrutiny Committee,
decision to appropriate PBG and to initiate termination of CMDPA have
taken in New Delhi and the Nominated Authority is having its permanent
office solely within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, this
Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition, and the Impugned
Orders have wrongly decided to the contrary.”
13. While rejecting the aforenoted submission and affirming the orders
passed by this Court in M/s Vedanta Ltd. v. Nominated Authority, Ministry
8
of Coal , the Division Bench held as under:
“ 41. In Sterling Agro Industries Ltd v. Union of India and Others, 2011
SCC OnLine Del 3162, the Full Bench of this Court has held that even if a
minuscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a High
Court, a writ would be maintainable before that High Court, however that
part of cause of action must constitute a material, essential, or integral part
of the cause of action as laid down in Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim,
(2007) 11 SCC 335. It was further held that the location of the appellate or
revisional authority alone would not constitute forum convenience as it will
vary from case to case and depend upon the lis in question. Therefore, it was
held that while exercising the writ jurisdiction, the doctrine of forum

8
W.P.(C) 1664/2026, orders dt. 07.02.2026 and 09.02.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.04.2026
14:17:52
W.P.(C) 5212/2026 Page 6 of 8

convenience and the nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinized
by the High Court depending on the factual matrix of each case.
...
46. Therefore, material, essential and dominant cause of action has not
arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and, accordingly, the submission
of the Appellant that this Court ought to have exercised jurisdiction on the
basis of issuance of SCN-III within the jurisdiction of this Court is untenable.
By issuing SCN-III, no order has been passed and accordingly forum
convenience would be in the jurisdictional High Court where the Tribunal is
situated.

47. In view of the above, we concur with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge in the Impugned Orders. Hence, the Appeal filed by Vedanta
being LPA No. 83/2026 along with the pending applications deserves to be
dismissed. ”

14. Subodh Chanda Saha (supra) arose on account of different facts. The
said decision, as opposed to M/s Vedanta Ltd. (supra), was not based on a
discussion on forum conveniens . Importantly, neither was the decision of the
9
learned Single Judge in Subodh Chandra Saha v. Punjab National Bank ,
premised on the principle of forum conveniens . The judgement of the
Division Bench in Subodh Chandra Saha (supra), is thus, distinguishable.
15. At its highest, accepting the petitioner‟s submission would allow for
the conclusion that a part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi, however,
the same should not be the sole reason to entertain the instant petition.
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v.
10
Union of India and Anr. , has held 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

9
W.P.(C) 18261/2025, order dt. 27.01.2026.
10
(2004) 6 SCC 254.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.04.2026
14:17:52
W.P.(C) 5212/2026 Page 7 of 8

of forum conveniens . The material portion of the aforenoted 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] .]”

17. 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.
18. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 20, 2026
Tr / Rao


Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.04.2026
14:17:52
W.P.(C) 5212/2026 Page 8 of 8