Situs of a statutory body is insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction if the cause of action arises elsewhere.

The petitioners, residents of Wardha, Maharashtra, claim financial losses due to irregularities in the Yashwant Urban Credit Cooperative Society Limited

Following an inquiry under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which identified a liability of Rs. 95,18,514

The petitioners filed a writ petition in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court through Respondent No. 3 (Advocate)

Dissatisfied with the advocate's conduct, they filed a disciplinary complaint (No. 179/2022) with the State Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa

After the complaint was dismissed on 26.06.2023, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI)

The petitioners approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions for the BCI to list and hear their appeal, asserting jurisdiction solely because the BCI’s head office is in Delhi

Whether the mere location of the head office or situs of a statutory authority within Delhi is sufficient to vest the Delhi High Court with territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when the underlying cause of action arose elsewhere

Whether the Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 in light of the doctrine of forum non conveniens

The court applied the principle that the situs of a respondent’s head office does not automatically determine territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

It relied on The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi, which established that "dominant facts" that are "material, essential, and integral" to the dispute must occur within the jurisdiction

Furthermore, the court invoked the doctrine of forum conveniens as established by the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, holding that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within a court's jurisdiction, the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary power if another forum is more appropriate

The Court reasoned that the substance of the matter—the residents, the cooperative society, the alleged financial irregularities, the state-level disciplinary proceedings, and the conduct of the advocate—all pertain to Maharashtra

It observed that the BCI's act of hearing an appeal in Delhi is a "static/uniform facet" resulting solely from Delhi being the national capital and is "immaterial, non-essential, and non-integral" to the core dispute

The Court emphasized that allowing such petitions would turn the Delhi High Court into a "mini-pan-India Superior Court"

While acknowledging that a fragment of the cause of action (the pending appeal at BCI) exists in Delhi, the Court determined that based on the "dominant facts," Delhi is not the appropriate forum

Invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the Court dismissed the petition

However, it granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional High Court (Bombay High Court) to agitate their grievances, leaving all rights and contentions open