Michael Builders And Developers PVT. LTD. vs. The Indian Nursing Council And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., entered into an agreement with St. Alphonsa Trust to construct 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 to attach the subject properties. The District Court ordered attachment, but the Trust subsequently applied for an Essentiality Certificate to establish a nursing college on these properties. The petitioner had previously filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court seeking to prevent the grant of permission, which were withdrawn. The petitioner then filed the present writ petitions before the Delhi High Court, seeking to restrain the respondents from granting any permission to the Trust and requesting an inquiry into the grant of the Essentiality Certificate.

Held

The Delhi High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. The Court reasoned that the entire cause of action, including the subject properties, the Trust, the construction dispute, the arbitration proceedings, the execution proceedings, and the application for the Essentiality Certificate, were all located within the territorial jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously filed similar writ petitions before the Madras High Court and that the withdrawal of those petitions did not grant liberty to file in another jurisdiction. The Court also observed that the execution proceedings in Tamil Nadu, which formed the basis of the petitioner's grievance, had been stayed by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner had engaged in forum shopping by attempting to invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court after having approached the appropriate forum in Tamil Nadu. The petitions were dismissed on the sole ground of territorial jurisdiction, with costs imposed on the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions, considering that the subject properties, the Trust, and the underlying civil disputes are located in Tamil Nadu? The petitioner argued that the respondents, National Medical Commission and Indian Nursing Council, are statutory bodies with a pan-India presence, and their actions have pan-India implications, thus conferring territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court. They also contended that the cause of action arose in Delhi due to the respondents' alleged disregard for the law and their rules. The respondents, however, argued that the foundational facts and the entire cause of action, including the attachment of properties and the Trust's activities, are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. They cited the doctrine of 'forum non conveniens' and previous High Court judgments to support their contention that the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. The respondents also pointed out that the petitioner had previously approached the Madras High Court for similar reliefs and that the withdrawal of those petitions did not grant liberty to file in another jurisdiction. Furthermore, they highlighted that the execution proceedings in Tamil Nadu, which formed the basis of the petitioner's grievance, had been stayed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.