Reliant Credits (India) Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010262202026
Date of decision: 27.10.2026

+ W.P.(C) 8243/2026 & CM APPL. 39012/2026
RELIANT CREDITS (INDIA) LTD
.....Petitioner
Through:Adv. Ravi Shankar Nanda, Adv.
Madhurima Sarangi, Adv. Varun Kumar, Adv.
Karni Singh

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through:Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC, Mr. Rahul
Kumar Sharma, GP and Ms. Maanya Saxena, Adv
for R1
Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Sr. Advocate, Ms.Nisha
Sharma, Mr. Aditya Vats Sharma, Ms. Ayushi
Pandey, Advocates for R-2&3

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH


: JASMEET SINGH, J ( ORAL )

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following prayers :-
“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned
Order dated 08.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:33
W.P.(C) 8243/2026 Page 1 of 9

No. 1;
(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing and setting aside the Cancellation
Order dated 11.09.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2, together
with the consequential letter dated 17.09.2025; (c) Issue a
writ, order or direction declaring that the Certificate of
Registration No. B-16.00151 dated 03.08.2018 stands restored
and is valid and subsisting; (d) Pending hearing and final
disposal of the present petition, stay the operation and effect of
both the Cancellation Order dated 11.09.2025 and the
Impugned Order dated 08.06.2026, and permit the Petitioner
to continue carrying on its business as a Non-Banking
Financial Institution under the said Certificate of
Registration……”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a non-deposit
taking Non-Banking Financial Company (“NBFC”) registered in Kerala,
and is holding a Certificate of Registration (“CoR”) issued by the Reserve
Bank of India in the year 2001. A show cause notice dated 26.07.2024 was
issued to the petitioner under Section 45-IA (6) and 58(b) of the Reserve
Bank of India Act, 1934 seeking response as to why the COR should not be
cancelled. The petitioner duly replied to the said notice.
3. Pursuant thereto, an Order dated 11.09.2025 was passed by the
respondent No. 2 cancelling CoR of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid cancellation Order before the
before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and consequently the operation and
effect of cancellation Order was stayed on 07.10.2025. Thereafter, the writ
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:33
W.P.(C) 8243/2026 Page 2 of 9

petition was disposed of vide Order dated 09.03.2026, stating that since the
petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority
(challenging the order dated 11.09.2025), the same should be adjudicated on
its own merits.
5. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 08.06.2026 upholding
the cancellation order. Hence the present writ petition.
6. This Court while hearing the petition at the interim stage was pleased
to grant interim protection to the petitioner vide its Order dated 30.07.2026.

7. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Division Bench in
appeal by way of an LPA bearing No. 680/2026, wherein the Order dated
30.07.2026 was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh hearing.
Accordingly, the present petition has been taken up for hearing.
8. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-3, objects to
the jurisdiction of this Court in order to entertain the present writ petition
and relies on doctrine of forum non conveniens i.e., an inconvenient forum,
hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. In response to the said preliminary objection, Mr. Nanda, learned
counsel for the petitioner, draws my attention to paragraph No. 21 of the
Order dated 30.07.2026, wherein this Court had prima facie held that since
the Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order dated 08.06.2026,
this Court prima facie may have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
Paragraph No. 21 of the Order dated 30.07.2026 reads as under:
“21. I am Prima-facie of this view that the Appellate
Authority is situated in Delhi and the impugned order of
Appellate Authority dated 08.06.2026 was passed in Delhi.
Thus, this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:33
W.P.(C) 8243/2026 Page 3 of 9

present matter and can accordingly adjudicate the present
application for grant of interim relief at this stage.
Additionally, paragraph Nos. 31 to 37 of the judgment of
Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC
1098, also supports this view and the relevant paragraphs
of the same read as under: …”
10. Paragraph No. 37 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
1
case of Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India , reads as under:-
“37. In our considered opinion, the doctrine of forum non
conveniens has been misapplied by the Division Bench in
the context of writ jurisdiction referable to Article 226 of the
Constitution. Such article permits filing of a writ petition as
per situs of office of the respondent(s) [clause (1)] and
cause of action [clause (2)] which gives the right of action.
Where the question of pursuing a constitutional remedy is
involved and invocation of writ jurisdiction is traceable to
clause (1) of Article 226, the doctrine of forum non
conveniens may rarely apply. When a writ of or in the
nature of Certiorari is prayed, Rule Nisi requires the
records of the case to be placed before the Court for
examining whether the order under challenge, which is part
of the records, deserves to be quashed or not by a writ of or
in the nature of Certiorari. Such records would invariably
28
be available in the offices of the respondents ; if not, it can
readily be called for from the custodian thereof. A suitor

1
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1098.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:33
W.P.(C) 8243/2026 Page 4 of 9

having himself chosen the forum convenient to the
respondents, application of the doctrine of forum non
conveniens could be self-defeating and likely to deny access
to justice rather than advancing it. …”
11. In the present case, the respondent No. 2-3 have filed their counter
affidavit and the Court today is to decide the issue relating to application of
doctrine of forum non conveniens . For the purpose of adjudication of this
objection my attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2-3 to the following factual information:
I. The petitioner has its registered office in Kerala.
II. The CoR was granted to the petitioner by the
Thiruvananthapuram Regional Office of the answering
respondent.
III. The most important aspect, i.e., the statutory inspection for
violation of relevant provisions was undertaken in relation
to petitioner’s affairs and business in Kerala.
IV. The show-cause notice dated 26.07.2024 was issued by the
answering respondent’s regional office at
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.
V. The order of cancellation dated 11.09.2025 was passed by
the Designated Authority, Mumbai office of the answering
respondents.
VI. The petitioner challenged the said order of cancellation
dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Designated Authority,
Mumbai, before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.
12. In a similar matter titled ET Devassy and Sons Finance Private
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:33
W.P.(C) 8243/2026 Page 5 of 9

2
Limited v. Union of India & Ors. , a Coordinate Bench of this Court held
that the only fact that Appellate Authority was located in Delhi will not
confer appropriate jurisdiction to this Court. The relevant paragraph of the
Order dated 25.04.2023 reads as under:
“2. The present petition challenges the impugned order
dated 13th March, 2023 passed by the Ld. Appellate
Authority, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of
Finance (hereinafter, “ld. Appellate Authority”) in respect
of the NBFC registration of the Petitioner. By the impugned
order, the registration of the Petitioner has been cancelled
by the ld. Appellate Authority.”
13. The judgment of Baksish Ahmad (Supra) is distinguishable on facts.
In the said judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case of
termination of a BSF member and based upon a holistic reading of its earlier
rulings, Sections 4 and 5 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, and Rule
22(4) of the BSF Rules, it held that the Delhi High Court possessed
territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) in cases of termination of any
members of Central Armed Police Forces including BSF. Hence, the said
finding was based on the interpretation of particular statuary provisions.
However, in the present case the petitioner NBFC is registered in Kerala,
CoR was granted to it by regional office situated in Kerala, statutory
inspection was conducted in relation to affairs of the petitioner in Kerala,
show cause notice dated 26.07.2024 was issued by the regional office
situated in Kerala and ultimately the order of cancellation was issued by the
Designated Authority situated in Mumbai.

2
W.P.(C) 5294/2023
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:33
W.P.(C) 8243/2026 Page 6 of 9

14. In fact, the petitioner went on to challenge the said order of
cancellation passed by Designated Authority situated at Mumbai, before the
Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder submission states
that this Court is the convenient forum because the appellate order is itself
under challenge and the said order finally determined the cancellation of
CoR of the petitioner.
16. The said contention is misconceived as passing of the appellate order
by the Appellate Authority only constitutes a part of the cause of action and
not the substance of the matter for the purpose of exercise of jurisdiction
conferred upon this Court by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The core issue is regarding the cancellation of CoR by the respondents
which was also not done within the jurisdiction of this Court. The appellate
order is only a part of the composite factual narration. The question before
this Court is not whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain
and try the petition (which this Court does have) but whether this Court is
more “convenient forum” for adjudication. In view of the discussion above,
Delhi Court is not the forum court.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Kusum Ingots &
3
Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. , has categorically held that if a
minuscule part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the
High Court, it cannot be the determinative factor to adjudicate the matter on
merit. The High Court can always refuse to exercise its discretionary writ
jurisdiction by applying the relevant principle of forum conveniens and
holding that the particular Court is not the most convenient forum for

3
(2004) 6 SCC 254.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:33
W.P.(C) 8243/2026 Page 7 of 9

adjudication for the matter. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment 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] .]”
18. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment of John David
4
Kusmode v. Union of India , while dismissing a writ petition observed in
context of application of the principle of forum non conveniens that it is the
substance of the matter which should be adjudged and not the unchanging
constant which may be present in every petition against the state. Only when
a part of cause of action is arising at a place, the same cannot be a
compelling factor for this Court to exercise its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction.

4
2026 SCC OnLine Del 2255.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:33
W.P.(C) 8243/2026 Page 8 of 9

19. From a conspectus of the aforesaid, I am of the view that for the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction which is discretionary in nature, the existence
of territorial jurisdiction cannot be the sole/compelling ground for this Court
to adjudicate the matter on merits, when the substantive dispute emanates
from a different jurisdiction. In the present case, the substantive dispute is
not emanating from the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and State of
Kerala is the place where major material facts have arisen.
20. The only reason that the Appellate Authority is situated within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court cannot be the ground to contend that this
Court is the more convenient forum and is obligated to adjudicate the matter
particularly when the entire intrinsic and crucial part of the cause of action
has arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as is the case in the
factual matrix of the present case.
21. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that this Court is not a
forum convenient for the adjudication of the substantive dispute between the
parties .
22. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds raised in the present
petition before the appropriate High Court, including the prayer for interim
relief, if any.
23. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.

JASMEET SINGH, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026/NR
(Corrected and uploaded on 05.11.2026)
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
11:33
W.P.(C) 8243/2026 Page 9 of 9