Full Text
W.P.(C) 3293/2026
Date of Decision: 16.03.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate.
Through:
JUDGMENT
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 3293/2026 and CM APPL. 15925/2026
1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
21) and declining permission for disposal of assets acquired for development of scientific research and development facility;
KUMAR KAURAV and issue the necessary Form 3CL certificate in respect of Petitioner approved in-house research and development unit for FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20, corresponding to AY 2018-19, AY 2019-20 and AY 2020- 21, respectively basis the documents already furnished before Respondent including Form 3CLA filed physically before Respondent.
2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner is a company engaged in manufacturing and selling of catalytic converters for the automobile industry, and has its production facility at Bawal, Haryana and Sanand, Gujarat. The petitioner also has an in-house Research and Development (“R&D”) unit located at Plot No. 242-243, Sector 3, Industrial Growth Centre, Bawal, Rewari, Haryana, which has been recognized by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR).
3. The petitioner has incurred certain expenditures in connection with this Haryana-based Research Unit. Applications were made to the Department to avail Form 3CL for the concerned FYs, which is a condition pre-requisite to avail benefits/deductions, under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for incurring expenditure on scientific research. Further, it also appears, that another application dated 04.12.2018 was made by the petitioner to the Department seeking prior approval to dispose of one of its Research and Development equipment, which is being used in the Research Unit. Both of the above-said applications were rejected by the Department vide the Impugned Orders which are sought to be challenged in the instant petition.
4. All applications filed by the petitioner are in connection with recognition, approval, and expenditure in relation to its in-house Research and Development unit and the same have been submitted through the Bawal, Haryana R&D unit, establishing that all administrative filings in respect of the petitioner’s R&D activities are routed through its Haryana office.
5. It appears that the present petition has been instituted before this Court only on grounds that the respondent-Department is situated in New Delhi.
6. This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi,[1] took note of the decisions in Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban Development Corp.,[2] Riddhima Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education,[3] Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital v. Uttarakhand University of Ayurveda and Ors.,[4] Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Medical Commission and Ors.,[5] which declare that the situs of the head office/registered office of the respondent, does not determine whether the Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition.
7. The Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. importantly noted, at para. 36:
8. On the issue of a claimant approaching this Court on the sole-ground of the respondent-authority, an arm of the union government, being situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, it was observed at para. 37-38:
9. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the substance of a matter must be adjudged, and not the unchanging constant which is present in every petition against a state-authority, to arrive at a conclusion on whether to entertain a petition in the context of territorial jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. At para. 42 this Court observed:
10. In the facts of the instant case, there may be a part of cause of action which has arisen in Delhi, however, the same should not be the sole reason to entertain the instant petition.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.,[6] has held that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The material portion of the aforenoted decision reads as under: “Forum conveniens
30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney [AIR 1941 Cal 670: ILR (1941) 1 Cal 490], Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945) 49 CWN 357: AIR 1949 Cal 495], Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. [1997 CWN 122], S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India [(1994) 1 CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR 1994 Del 126].]”
12. In view of the above, petition stands dismissed, along with pending application. Liberty is, however, granted in favour of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court to agitate the instant lis, if so advised.
13. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MARCH 16, 2026 Nc