Situs of head office or contract signing does not establish territorial jurisdiction if the integral cause of action arises elsewhere.

The petitioner was awarded a contract by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) on 13.10.2020 for toll collection at the Banajodi to Panikholi Section Toll Plaza in Odisha.

Alleging that COVID-19 severely impacted collections, the petitioner sought contract termination and Force Majeure Claims (FCMs) through correspondence with NHAI officials located in Keonjhar and Bhubaneswar, Odisha.

Following previous rounds of litigation in the Delhi High Court regarding coercive actions and the rejection of FCMs, the petitioner filed the present writ seeking the release of unpaid FCMs for the period from 01.02.2021 to 04.05.2021.

The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court on the grounds that the respondent is headquartered in Delhi and the contract was signed there.

1. Whether the Delhi High Court should exercise territorial jurisdiction over a dispute where the subject matter (toll plaza and performance) and the primary cause of action arose in Odisha.

2. Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies when the sole connection to the forum is the location of the respondent’s registered office and the execution of the contract.

The court relied on the doctrine of forum conveniens as established in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which holds that a High Court may refuse to exercise discretionary jurisdiction even if a small part of the cause of action arises within its territory.

The principle from Indure Private Limited v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Sri Sai Enterprises v. NHAI, stating that the situs of a respondent’s head office or the place where an order is passed does not, by itself, determine territorial jurisdiction if the "material, essential, and integral" parts of the cause of action arose elsewhere.

The court observed that the "material, integral and essential" parts of the cause of action—specifically the performance of the tolling contract and the related administrative correspondence—occurred in Odisha.

The court reasoned that NHAI’s presence in Delhi is an "unchanging constant" due to its status as the national capital and does not constitute a "dominant fact" for the purpose of jurisdiction.

The court cautioned against making the Delhi High Court a "mini-pan-India Superior Court" by entertaining matters where the underlying legal injury and foundational facts lie outside its borders.

Despite the contract being signed in Delhi, the court found the connection insufficient to override the fact that the dispute's substance was tied to Odisha.

It held that the mere location of the respondent’s headquarters in Delhi is insufficient to maintain the petition when the core dispute is centered in another state.

The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court (Odisha) to agitate the claims.

All rights and contentions of the parties were left open.