Contractual Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Cannot Confer Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Where Cause of Action Arises Elsewhere

The Petitioner, Devi Engineering and Constructions Pvt Ltd, was awarded two contracts on 19.06.2025 by ONGC for onshore seismic data acquisition in Gujarat.

On 16.03.2026, ONGC issued letters terminating these contracts, followed by suspension orders and debarment show-cause notices dated 23.04.2026.

The Petitioner initially challenged these actions before the Gujarat High Court but withdrew that petition with liberty to approach the "appropriate forum" after ONGC revoked its bank guarantees.

The Petitioner then filed the present writ petitions before the Delhi High Court, arguing that since the termination letters were issued from ONGC's Delhi office and the contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause for Delhi, the court had the requisite territorial jurisdiction.

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution solely because the respondent's head office is in Delhi and the termination letters were issued from there, despite the underlying work being executed in Gujarat.

2. Whether a contractual "exclusive jurisdiction" clause can confer writ jurisdiction upon a High Court under Article 226 if the material cause of action arose elsewhere.

The court applied the principle of Forum Conveniens and the "integral cause of action" test under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi, which establishes that the location of a decision-making authority in the national capital is not the sole factor for jurisdiction; rather, the court must look for "material, essential, and integral" facts constituting the cause of action.

Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India held that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within a jurisdiction, the court may refuse to exercise discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.

Private contractual stipulations cannot confer or abridge the constitutional writ jurisdiction of a High Court.

The Court reasoned that the dispute essentially pertained to a contract for work to be executed in Gujarat, meaning the "dominant facts" and material parts of the cause of action arose outside Delhi.

The Court noted that as the national capital, Delhi houses many bodies with pan-India jurisdiction, but treating this as a sufficient link would turn the Delhi High Court into a "mini-pan-India Superior Court".

The Court clarified that while such clauses might bind parties in civil suits, they cannot "mould" or dictate the discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226.

The Court concluded that the act of issuing a letter or holding a hearing in Delhi is often an "immaterial" or "non-integral" factor compared to the location of the legal injury or foundational facts.

The Court held that neither the location of the respondent nor the contractual agreement are sole determinative factors when the underlying cause of action arose elsewhere.

The petitions were disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the competent forum, such as the jurisdictional High Court (Gujarat), as per law.