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