Solely Because A Fraction Of Cause Of Action Has Arisen Within Territorial Jurisdiction Of High Court, Writ Petition Cannot Be Entertained : Delhi HC

The Court said that the doctrine of forum conveniens can be invoked by the concerned Court taking into consideration the various facts and circumstances involved.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition where an objection with respect to the territorial jurisdiction was raised by the Respondent.

The bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav perused various cases on the point of territorial jurisdiction and observed, “Court has constantly taken a consistent view that solely because a fraction of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court, the same would not be a sufficient ground to persuade the concerned High Court to entertain a writ petition.”

Advocate Sriparna Chatterjee appeared for the Appellant and SPC Anushkaa Arora appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The Petitioner, a medical officer in Uttar Pradesh, qualified for the NEET PG Examination and was allotted a seat in the Ophthalmology post-MBBS diploma program at Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow. She received permission to pursue the course based on a recommendation from the Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly after which she joined the program. However, her admission was cancelled because she joined the course nearly five months after the scheduled date.

The Court relied on the decision in Bharat Nidhi Ltd. v. SEBI where according to the Court it was observed, “….has applied the doctrine of forum conveniens and has held that even if a fraction of cause of action has arisen within a jurisdiction of a particular High Court, still while applying the aforesaid doctrine, the party can be relegated to the concerned jurisdictional High Court where the material, essential and integral part of the controversy has arisen.”

The Court further mentioned the decision in Ashoka Marketing Limited & Anr v. SEBI & Ors and quoted, “The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the convenience of all the parties before it. The convenience in its ambit and sweep would include the existence of more appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for just adjudication of the controversy and such other ancillary aspects. The balance of convenience is also to be taken note of.”

The Court said, “There is not an iota of doubt with respect to the discretionary powers of the Court under Article 226(1) & (2) to entertain a writ petition on the basis of the fraction of the cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. However, the exercise of such discretion would depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in each case.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

Cause Title: Neha Chandra v. Union of India

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Sriparna Chatterjee and Soumitra Chatterjee

Respondent: SPC Anushkaa Aror and GP Gokul Sharma

Click here to read/download Judgment