Situs of Head Office or Arbitration Seat Does Not Confer Writ Jurisdiction Absent Integral Cause of Action

The petitioner was awarded a "Development cum Supply Order" by Respondent No. 2 (based in Nagpur, Maharashtra) on 01.05.2023 for the supply of 45 KVA Ground Power Units (GPUs)

Performance including manufacturing and pre-dispatch inspections took place in Pune and Nagpur, Maharashtra

Following delivery delays, Respondent No. 2 issued a termination order and directed the forfeiture of the petitioner’s bank guarantee on 13.04.2026 from Nagpur

The petitioner challenged this termination in the Delhi High Court, citing that their registered office is in Delhi, some respondents are headquartered in Delhi, and the contract's arbitration clause fixed the seat in Delhi

1. Whether the mere presence of a respondent's head office or the petitioner’s registered office in Delhi is sufficient to vest territorial jurisdiction in the Delhi High Court under Article 226

2. Whether a contractual "seat of arbitration" clause in Delhi can bind a Constitutional Court’s discretionary writ jurisdiction

3. Whether the court should exercise jurisdiction based on the doctrine of forum conveniens when the material cause of action arose outside its territorial limits

The Court relied on the principle that the situs of a head office or registered office does not, by itself, determine territorial jurisdiction if the "material, essential, and integral" facts occurred elsewhere, as established in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. GNCTD

Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which permits a court to refuse jurisdiction even if a small part of the cause of action arises within its limits

Per Durgapur Freight Terminal Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India, private arbitration agreements or jurisdiction clauses cannot oust or mandate the discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226

The Court observed that the "substance of the matter" was entirely connected to Maharashtra: the contract was issued from Nagpur, inspections occurred in Pune, and the impugned termination order originated from Nagpur

The Court reasoned that the presence of government authorities in the national capital is an "unchanging constant" and "static facet" that should not be treated as a "dominant fact" to attract jurisdiction

It rejected the argument that an arbitration seat in Delhi suffices for a writ petition, noting that a Constitutional Court cannot be "moulded to suit the fancies of parties expressed in their contract"

Applying the doctrine of forum conveniens, the Court found that the legal injury and foundational facts were tied to the jurisdictional High Court in Maharashtra, rendering the Delhi connection merely "incidental and cosmetic"

The petition was dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate jurisdictional High Court in Maharashtra. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly