High Court Rejects Territorial Jurisdiction Based Solely on Respondent’s Situs Under Doctrine of Forum Conveniens

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition merely because the respondent-authority is situated in Delhi, when the underlying project and cause of action arose in Kerala.

The court held

The Court dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and the doctrine of forum conveniens.

It also directed

It held that a material part of the cause of action arose outside Delhi.

The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court (Kerala) to agitate their grievances.

Relief was denied without prejudice to the merits of the case.

01Facts

The petitioners challenged show-cause notices and a consequential debarment order dated 13.04.2026 issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

¶ 1

The debarment, lasting one year plus a financial penalty, was based on alleged structural failures and poor construction standards in a highway project located in the State of Kerala.

¶ 2–3

The NHAI concluded that the petitioners’ construction lapses compromised project safety and stability.

¶ 4

The petitioners approached the Delhi High Court primarily because the NHAI’s headquarters is located in Delhi.

¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition merely because the respondent-authority is situated in Delhi, when the underlying project and cause of action arose in Kerala.

¶ 6 / para. 11

ii.2. Whether the court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum conveniens.

¶ 10 / para. 16

03Law Applied

The court applied the "material, essential, and integral" test for determining "cause of action" under Article 226 of the Constitution, as established in Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim.

¶ 13

It relied on Sterling Agro Industries Ltd v. Union of India, which held that the location of a respondent’s head office alone does not confer jurisdiction if the forum conveniens lies elsewhere.

¶ 13

The court further applied the doctrine of forum conveniens as articulated in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which permits a High Court to refuse a case even if a minuscule part of the cause of action arises within its territory.

¶ 16

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the project site, inspections, and the alleged contractual deficiencies occurred entirely in Kerala.

¶ 11

It noted that the location of NHAI’s head office in Delhi is an "unchanging constant" and "static facet" that does not determine the substance of the dispute.

¶ 9–10

The Court reasoned that if every action by a central authority in Delhi was heard by the Delhi High Court, it would become a "mini-pan-India Superior Court," overwhelming its jurisdiction with events taking place across the country.

¶ 8

Distinguishing from Subodh Chandra Saha, the Court followed M/s Vedanta Ltd., holding that since the dominant facts and the legal injury were rooted in Kerala, the Delhi High Court was not the appropriate forum.

¶ 13–14