0

Jurisdictional Tug of War: Delhi High Court Weighs in on Forum Conveniens in a Recent Case   

Blog , , ,

Case Title: NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED v. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & ORS. 

Date of Decision: September 27, 2023

Case Number: W.P.(C) 443/2023 & CM APPL. 1741/2023 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan 

 

Introduction 

 

This case involves a petition filed by NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED (the petitioner) under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner seeks various reliefs related to a dispute with Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others (the respondents) concerning electrification for a housing project in Gurugram, Haryana.  

   

Factual Background 

 

  • The petitioner, a Public Sector Undertaking, applied to the Nigam for approval of electrical load and scheme for its housing project in Gurugram in 2015.  
  • The Nigam issued a communication in favor of the petitioner’s project in 2016 from its Delhi office.  
  • The petitioner had agreements with respondent No. 3 for sharing infrastructure for electrification.  
  • A dispute arose when the Nigam issued a letter in 2022 stating that forming a group for sharing the switching station with respondent No. 3 was not technically feasible.  

   

Legal Issues 

 

The main legal issue is whether the High Court of Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to hear the petitioner’s case under Article 226(2) of the Indian Constitution, considering the cause of action and the doctrine of forum conveniens.  

   

Contentions of the Parties 

 

  • The petitioner argued that since part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, it should maintain jurisdiction.  
  • The respondents contended that they are not within the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction, and the cause of action did not substantially arise there.  

   

Observation and Analysis 

 

  • Article 226(2) allows High Courts to exercise jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arises within their territorial jurisdiction.  
  • The doctrine of forum conveniens states that a High Court may decline jurisdiction if the proceedings are more closely connected to another High Court.  
  • Several judgments, including Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India, State of Goa vs. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd., and Sterling Agro Industries vs Union of India, emphasized the importance of forum conveniens in exercising jurisdiction.  
  • The cause of action in this case, related to electrification of a project in Gurugram, is intimately connected to the State of Haryana.  
  • The issuance of the communication in Delhi was considered a “slender part of the cause of action.” 

   

Decision of the Court 

 

The court considered the concept of “forum conveniens” and noted that the cause of action was primarily related to the project’s electrification in Gurugram, Haryana, which fell outside the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction. The court cited relevant precedents and emphasized that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction, it may not necessarily confer jurisdiction. 

 

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the doctrine of forum conveniens, as the case was more closely connected to Haryana. The petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the appropriate court with the same cause of action.  

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment 

 

0

Delhi High Court Upholds Cancellation of School Security Tenders: Key Takeaways and Compensation Rights   

Blog , , ,

Case Title: M/S Bombay Intelligence Security India Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 

Date of Decision: 27th September, 2023

Case Number: W.P.(C) 12314/2023 

Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula 

 

Introduction 

 

This case involves a dispute between three security services companies (Petitioners) and the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) regarding the cancellation of tenders issued by the Directorate of Education (DoE) for the deployment of security personnel in government schools in Delhi. The Petitioners had won these tenders, but the DoE annulled the process, leading to the cancellation of the contracts. The Petitioners challenged this decision in the High Court of Delhi. 

 

Factual Background 

 

  • DoE issued tenders for security services in government schools in Delhi.  
  • Petitioners emerged as successful bidders in the tender process.  
  • Previous legal challenges were raised against the initial tenders, but the DoE decided to reissue new tenders.  
  • Petitioners submitted bids and were awarded contracts.  
  • Deployment was scheduled to start on 10th August 2023.  
  • The DoE halted the process and later canceled the tenders on the grounds that certain bidders had provided false information regarding their qualifications.  

   

Legal Issues 

 

The key legal issues in this case are:  

  1. Whether the cancellation of the tender process by DoE was justified. 
  2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to compensation for the losses incurred due to the cancellation. 

   

Contentions of the Parties 

 

  • Petitioners argued that DoE’s decision to cancel the tenders was arbitrary and lacked justification.  
  • DoE contended that the cancellation was necessary due to misleading information provided by certain bidders, which compromised the integrity of the process.  

   

Observation and Analysis 

 

The court’s analysis focuses on the integrity of the tendering process, emphasizing that transparency, fairness, and competitiveness are fundamental values of any tendering process. It highlights the fact that some bidders had provided misleading information, leading to the inclusion of unqualified participants in the competition. The court finds that this compromised the integrity of the entire procedure and justifies the DoE’s decision to cancel the tenders. It also noted that the Petitioners’ claim for compensation should be pursued through civil proceedings.  

   

Decision of the Court 

 

The High Court upheld the DoE’s decision to cancel the tenders, finding it justified given the compromised integrity of the process. The Court disposed of the petition, allowing the Petitioners to seek compensation through civil proceedings. 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment

0

Delhi High Court Upholds Travel Restriction in Bail Conditions: Balancing Freedom and Investigation Integrity   

Blog , , ,

Case Title: Disha A. Ravi vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 

Date of Decision: 26.09.2023 

Case Number: CRL.M.C. 5914/2023 & CRL. M.A. 22214/2023 

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma 

 

Introduction 

 

Disha A. Ravi, the petitioner, sought the setting aside of an order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. This order sought the modification of bail conditions imposed on the petitioner earlier in a case arising from FIR No. 49/2021 registered at the Special Cell, New Delhi, under Sections 124A/153/153A/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 

 

Factual Background 

 

The case originated from allegations of a concerted campaign by banned terror organizations to disrupt the Republic Day national ceremony. A Google Document (“toolkit”) was shared on Twitter, allegedly containing plans for a larger conspiracy against India. The toolkit promoted material circulated by a Canada-based organization, and it called for protests outside Indian Embassies. Vandalism occurred outside the Indian Embassy in Rome, Italy, and violence erupted in Delhi on Republic Day, causing substantial damage. The petitioner was arrested on 13.02.2021, granted bail on 23.02.2021, and had been required to seek court permission before traveling abroad. 

 

Legal Issues 

 

The primary issue before the court was whether the condition of obtaining prior court permission for foreign travel, as imposed in the bail order, violated the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 

 

Contentions of the Parties 

 

  • The petitioner argued that the condition of seeking court permission for foreign travel was inconvenient and sought modification to inform the court instead.  
  • The State contended that the condition was necessary to ensure cooperation during ongoing investigations and to prevent any hindrance to future investigations. 

 

Observation and Analysis 

 

  • The court analyzed the allegations against the petitioner and the conditions imposed in the bail order.  
  • It emphasized the balance between an individual’s right to travel and the State’s interest in conducting investigations and protecting the proceedings.  
  • The court noted that the right to travel abroad is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions, especially in criminal cases.  
  • It referred to precedents highlighting that inconvenience to the accused cannot be the sole reason for deleting a reasonable condition imposed by the court.  
  • The court concluded that the condition was a rational restriction meant to secure the petitioner’s presence and ensure the integrity of the investigation.  

 

Decision of the Court 

 

The court rejected the petitioner’s request to delete the bail condition requiring prior court permission for foreign travel. However, it directed that the petitioner should apply for permission at least one month in advance, allowing the court to consider the plea and the State’s response promptly. The court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment 

0

Delhi High Court Upholds Mother’s Custody Right: Balancing Work and Welfare in Custody Battles 

Blog , , ,

 Case Title: Tirpat Singh Bansal v. Jagwant Kaur 

Date of Decision: September 26, 2023 

Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 32/2023 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna 

 

Facts 

   

  • The appellant, Tirpat Singh Bansal, challenged an order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Family Court, Delhi, in a case titled “Jagwant Kaur vs. Tirpat Singh Bansal.” The order granted interim custody of their minor daughter to the respondent-wife, Jagwant Kaur.  
  • The parties were married on 01.11.2017, and they had a daughter born on 08.01.2019.  
  • The appellant alleged that the respondent-wife, a geologist with the Geological Survey of India, had a demanding work schedule, which led to their separation. He claimed that she left the child with him and subsequently wanted a divorce and custody of the child.  
  • Various legal proceedings were initiated, including guardianship petitions, virtual visitation orders, and interim custody orders. 

 

Issues 

   

  1. Whether the Family Court’s order granting interim custody of the minor child to the respondent-wife was correct? 
  2. How should the visitation rights of the appellant-husband be determined for the welfare of the child?

 

Contentions 

 

  • The appellant alleges that the respondent-wife, who works as a geologist, often travels to remote areas for work, making it difficult for her to provide proper care and education to the child. He claims that he is better equipped to care for the child as he works from home. The appellant also asserts that he has borne all the expenses related to the child’s upbringing. 
  • The respondent-wife, on the other hand, argues that she should be granted custody based on Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, which typically favors the mother’s custody for children under the age of five. She states that she has been the primary caregiver since the child’s birth and that her work commitments should not be held against her. She also points out that she has good financial stability and access to medical facilities. 

 

Observation of the Court 

 

The court observed that the primary consideration in such cases is the welfare of the child. It noted that the child had been in the custody of her mother since birth, with brief exceptions due to official obligations. The court also discussed the provisions of Section 6 of the Act and cited relevant Supreme Court precedent in the case of Githa Hariharan Vs. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228 regarding the definition of “natural guardian.” 

 

Legal Principles Applied 

   

  • Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, stipulates that the interim custody of a child below the age of five years should ordinarily be with the mother.  
  • The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes.  
  • Courts may consider deviating from the mother’s custody only for strong reasons, and it can be replaced by another guardian if it is in the child’s best interest. 

 

Decision of the Court 

 

The court upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant interim custody to the respondent-wife, considering the child’s age, the mother’s capability, and the fact that the child had been primarily in her care. The court modified the visitation rights of the appellant-husband to ensure the child’s welfare. 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment

0

Navigating the Transition: Delhi High Court’s Decision on Transfer of Winding Up Proceedings to NCLT under IBC   

Blog , , , ,

Case Title: Uma Sharma v. Octagon Builders & Promoters & Anr. 

Date of Decision: 21st September 2023 

Case Number: CO.PET. 147/2014 & CO.APPLs. 858/2018, 301/2023, OLR 211/2019, OLR 293/2019 

Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh 

 

Introduction 

 

Uma Sharma (the petitioner) filed a petition under Section 433(e) and Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the winding up of Octagon Builders & Promoters (the respondent company). Multiple petitions were filed against the respondent company on the grounds that payments made to the company had not been returned. The court appointed an Official Liquidator (OL) for CO.PET. 147/2014 and disposed of the other petitions, allowing the petitioners to file claims before the OL. However, proceedings evolved as the company went into liquidation, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was enacted. 

 

Factual Background 

 

Several petitions were filed before the High Court against Octagon Builders & Promoters, alleging non-repayment of amounts paid to the company. The court appointed the OL for CO.PET. 147/2014 and disposed of the other petitions, granting the petitioners the right to file claims. Meanwhile, a petition was filed in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Allahabad Bench, related to the same company. The court considered the implications of the IBC and pending proceedings under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.  

   

Legal Issues 

 

  1. Whether winding up proceedings under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 should be transferred to the NCLT due to the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016? 
  2. How should the pending winding up petitions be dealt with, considering the objectives of IBC and the stage of proceedings?

 

Observation and Analysis 

 

The court considered the provisions of IBC and the Supreme Court’s guidance regarding the transfer of winding up proceedings. It noted that IBC aims to revive corporate debtors, and liquidation should be the last resort. The court reviewed Rule 5 of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ notification, which determined the transfer of winding up cases to NCLT. It emphasized that cases not at an advanced stage should be transferred.  

   

Decision of the Court 

 

The court recalled the order appointing the Liquidator for CO.PET. 147/2014 and transferred the petition to NCLT, Allahabad Bench. It allowed the claimants to pursue their claims before the NCLT. The court emphasized that transactions post-petition filing would be subject to NCLT proceedings and would not prejudice the claimants’ interests. The court also ordered the transmission of electronic records to the NCLT and allowed another claimant to implead in the case.  

   

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment 

1 2 3 4 … 15