Mere Situation Of Its Head Office Does Not Automatically Confer Jurisdiction : Delhi HC Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Medical Commission
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition against National Medical Commission observing that the mere situation of its head office in Delhi does not automatically confer jurisdiction upon it.
The Court dismissed the writ petition with costs filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) against the National Medical Commission (NMC) on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Bench stated that the petitioner engaged in ‘forum shopping’ by attempting to invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court after previously approaching and withdrawing similar petitions from the Madras High Court.
However, a Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “However, the mere situation of the head office of National Medical Commission or Indian Nursing Council in Delhi does not automatically confer jurisdiction upon this Court. These bodies have offices, and their legal teams, which function in every State across the country, including Tamil Nadu. Thus, the argument that National Medical Commission or Indian Nursing Council is based in Delhi is insufficient to justify the filing of a writ petition before this Court, especially when the cause of action has arisen, and the parties involved herein are located, in Tamil Nadu.”
AOR Mandeep Kalra appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave represented the respondents.
In 2013, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with St. Alphonsa Trust (Trust) to build facilities for a proposed medical college in Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu.
The petitioner alleged that the Trust had fraudulently applied for and obtained an Essentiality Certificate to establish a nursing and medical college, which had been attached by a District Court in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner argued that the permissions granted to the Trust were in violation of the law and sought intervention from the Delhi High Court.
It was contended that the petitioner engaged in forum shopping by choosing to approach the Delhi High Court after being unsuccessful before the Madras High Court.
The Court noted that the dispute revolved around construction in Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu. Both the petitioner, Trust, and properties were also situated in Tamil Nadu. Similarly, the Court pointed out that the cause of action and subsequent arbitration proceedings arose out of events in Tamil Nadu.
“Thus, there is no justification for invoking the jurisdiction of this High Court when the Courts in Tamil Nadu have already been seized of the matter and have issued relevant orders,” the Court noted.
The Bench clarified that "in case a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor to compel that particular High Court to exercise its jurisdiction." “Further, in appropriate cases, the Court may decline to exercise its discretion by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens,” it stated.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, imposing a total cost of Rs. 50k, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Michael Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Medical Commission & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7146)
Appearance:
Petitioner: AOR Mandeep Kalra; Advocates Anushna Satapathy, Chitrangada Singh, Radhika Jalan, Yashas J. and Kirti Arti
Respondents: Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave; Advocates T. Singhdev, Bhanu Gulati, Ramanpreet Kaur, Abhijit Chakrvarty, Anum Hussain, Tanishq Srivastava, Aabhas Sukhramani, Raghunatha Sethupathy B, S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Santhosh K, Pramod Kumar Vishnoi. Baskar Naidu and Adhi Narayana Rao
