Situs of respondent's headquarters or bank account does not override the doctrine of forum conveniens.

The petitioner, Anuj Goyal, purchased 1,233 residential units in the "Aspire Golf Homes" (Phase-II) project located in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, via a bulk e-auction conducted by Respondent No. 1 (NBCC)

Despite paying over ₹700 Crores against a total consideration of approximately ₹2,640 Crores, the petitioner alleged several breaches by NBCC, including failure to execute Builder Buyer Agreements (BBA), use of inferior materials, and improper show-cause notices for forfeiture

The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court seeking Mandamus and Certiorari, asserting jurisdiction on the grounds that NBCC’s head office is in Delhi and payments were deposited in a Delhi-based bank branch

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition merely because the respondent’s registered office and the designated bank account are located in Delhi

2. Whether the doctrine of forum conveniens should be invoked to decline jurisdiction when the material and integral parts of the cause of action arose outside the court's territory

Article 226(2) of the Constitution regarding territorial jurisdiction

Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, which establishes that writ jurisdiction is discretionary

The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi, which clarifies that the situs of a head office does not automatically confer jurisdiction if the underlying cause lies elsewhere

Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, holding that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within a territory, the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction if it is not the most appropriate forum

The Court reasoned that while a "part" of the cause of action might arise in Delhi due to the location of the NBCC office and the UCO Bank branch, these are merely "incidental and ancillary facts"

The "material, integral, and essential" facts—such as the project location, the alleged construction deficiencies, the non-execution of BBAs, and the project site at Greater Noida—all occurred in Uttar Pradesh

The Court emphasized that allowing jurisdiction based solely on the location of a national capital authority would effectively turn the Delhi High Court into a "mini-pan-India Superior Court"

Applying the doctrine of forum conveniens, the Court found that the substance of the matter was tied to Uttar Pradesh, and the static fact of the respondent being in Delhi was insufficient to compel the Court to hear the case on merits

The petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court (Allahabad High Court) to agitate the matter

All rights and contentions of the parties remained open for subsequent adjudication