HEADLINE: Situs of respondent’s head office alone does not confer territorial jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum conveniens.

The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 27.08.2021 with the respondent for consultancy services regarding the construction of High Altitude Hill roads in the West Siang and Upper Subansiri districts of Arunachal Pradesh.

The respondent subsequently issued a termination letter dated 20/04/2026 on the grounds of non-compliance with a previous court order dated 21/05/2025.

The petitioner challenged this termination in the Delhi High Court, asserting that a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.

Whether the Delhi High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the writ petition solely on the ground that the respondent's head office is in Delhi and the termination order was passed there, when the underlying performance of the contract is outside its jurisdiction.

The court primarily applied the doctrine of forum conveniens as established by the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which mandates that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within a court's territory, the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction if it is not the appropriate forum.

It further relied on the principles from The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. HUDCO, which clarify that the mere situs of a respondent’s head office or the place where an ultimate order is passed does not compel a High Court to entertain a petition if the genesis of the dispute lies elsewhere.

The court reasoned that although the respondent is headquartered in Delhi and the termination order was issued from there, these are considered "ancillary actions" within the context of the dispute.

The court noted that the actual work under the agreement was to be performed entirely in Arunachal Pradesh, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

Following the precedent in The Indure Pvt. Ltd., the court observed that entertaining such petitions would effectively turn the Delhi High Court into a "mini-pan-India Superior Court," exercising jurisdiction over events occurring across the country based solely on the location of an authority's office.

Therefore, the court determined that the presence of the respondent's head office was an insufficient factor to outweigh the doctrine of forum conveniens.

The court declined to exercise its jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition. The court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court (Arunachal Pradesh) and left all rights and contentions open.