Full Text
W.P.(C) 6224/2026 and CM APPL. 30500/2026
Date of Decision: 07.05.2026.
IN THE MATTER OF:- M/S BLOOM JINDAL JV IN ASSOCIATION
INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD.....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vivek Bhadauria, Ms.Pooja Singh, Mr.Bankim K. Kulshrestha, Mr.Vijender Singh Nirmal, Advocates.
Through:
J U D G E M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 30499 and 30501/2026 (for exemption)
JUDGMENT
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C) 6224/2026 and CM APPL. 30500/2026
1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:- KUMAR KAURAV “(a) Issue any appropriate Writ(s), Order, Direction to the respondent, directing them, to withdraw/ set-aside the impugned Termination letter dt- 20/04/2026, issued against petitioner, BY RESPONDENT, on the ground of non compliance of order dt-21/05/2025 passed by this Hon'ble court, as same is not relevant/ required in the present PROJECT. (b) Pass any such further order(s), Direction(s), which this Hon'ble Court may deem just fit and proper under the facts & circumstances of the case submitted hereinabove, in the interest of justice.”
2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement dated 27.08.2021 for consultancy services for construction of High Altitude Hill road from Tedadege TO Henkaer from KM 0.000 to KM 28.550 in West Siang District of the State of Arunachal Pradesh on EPC Mode and construction of High Altitude Hill road from Doginala TO Gau from KM 0.000 to KM 15.320 in Upper Subansiri District of the State of Arunachal Pradesh on EPC Mode through INFRA CON and CPP portal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct in stating that a part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. However, the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.,[1] 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].]”
4. This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi,[2] took note of the decisions in Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban Development Corp.,[3] Riddhima Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education,[4] Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital v. Uttarakhand University of Ayurveda and Ors.,[5] Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Medical Commission and Ors.,[6] 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.
5. The Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. importantly noted, at para. 36: