Michael Builders And Developers PVT. LTD. vs. National Medical Commission And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., entered into an agreement with St. Alphonsa Trust for construction of a medical college. A dispute arose over payment, leading to arbitration and a consent award directing the Trust to pay Rs. 15,95,00,000/- plus GST and service tax. The Trust failed to comply, and the petitioner initiated execution proceedings, resulting in an order for attachment of the subject properties. The petitioner alleges the Trust is proceeding to establish a nursing college on these attached properties and has applied for an Essentiality Certificate, despite the attachment. The petitioner had previously filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court concerning similar issues, which were withdrawn. The petitioner now seeks a writ of mandamus from the Delhi High Court to prevent the respondents from granting any permission to the Trust and to inquire into the grant of the Essentiality Certificate.

Held

The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. The Court noted that the subject properties, the Trust, and the underlying civil dispute were all located within Tamil Nadu. The petitioner had previously filed two writ petitions before the Madras High Court seeking similar reliefs, which were withdrawn. The Court found that the averment that liberty was granted to file fresh petitions was contrary to the records of the Madras High Court. Furthermore, the Court observed that the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had stayed the execution proceedings, including the attachment of properties, in a related case. The Court concluded that the petitioner had engaged in forum shopping by approaching the Delhi High Court after withdrawing petitions from the appropriate forum in Tamil Nadu. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, with costs imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate court of jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions, considering the subject properties and the underlying civil dispute are located in Tamil Nadu, and the petitioner had previously approached the Madras High Court for similar reliefs? (Question of territorial jurisdiction) Petitioner's arguments: - The respondents issued a Letter of Permission (LOP) based on a fraudulent application, ignoring the petitioner's notice and the attachment order. - Although the LOP was suspended, the initial issuance was a violation of National Medical Commission's rules. - The St. Alphonsa Trust is only consequentially affected, and the ongoing civil dispute does not preclude this Court's jurisdiction or make it forum non conveniens. - The petitioner had liberty to file a fresh petition before the appropriate court after withdrawing petitions from the Madras High Court. Respondents' arguments: - The entire cause of action, including the attachment of properties and the application for Essentiality Certificate, arose in Tamil Nadu. - The petitioner had previously filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court concerning the same subject matter and respondents. - The orders of withdrawal from the Madras High Court did not grant liberty to file fresh petitions before this Court. - The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has stayed the execution proceedings, including the attachment of properties, in a related matter.