Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 949
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
In The Matter Of:
Anuj Goyal - Petitioner
Versus
Nbcc (India) Limited And Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 6318 of 2026 and CM APPL. 30980 of 2026, CM APPL. 30981 of 2026
Decided On : 11-05-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Kunal Sachdeva and Mr. Lakshay Yadav, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Mr. Mirza Amir Baig, Mr. A.Wahid Mashaal,Advocates
Territorial jurisdiction for writs under Article 226 is determined by where the material, essential, and integral facts of the cause of action occur. The location of a respondent's office or bank accounts is incidental and insufficient to confer jurisdiction if the substantive dispute resides elsewhere.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction - Petitioner seeking relief regarding a project site located outside the jurisdiction of the Court - Presence of respondent’s corporate office and bank account managed within the capital city does not constitute a 'material, essential and integral' part of the cause of action - Doctrine of forum conveniens - Even if a small part of the cause of action arises within jurisdiction, the Court may refuse to exercise discretionary jurisdiction if the substance of the matter is situated elsewhere. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 13)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - Discretionary nature - Court must consider the substance of the matter rather than unchanging constants like the location of a state-authority's head office to determine territorial jurisdiction. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought multiple directions against a respondent regarding a real estate development project. The petitioner argued that the court had jurisdiction because the respondent's corporate office and the project's payment collection account were located within the capital city. The project site itself, and the alleged breaches of contract, occurred in a different state.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the location of the corporate office and the bank account were incidental and not central to the cause of action. Emphasizing the doctrine of forum conveniens, the court held that mere presence of the respondent in the national capital does not justify entertaining a writ petition for a dispute centering on events occurring outside its territorial borders.
Issues: Whether the court can exercise territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 solely based on the location of a respondent's corporate office and a designated bank account, despite the substantive cause of action arising in another state.
Ratio Decidendi: Territorial jurisdiction must be determined by the 'material, essential and integral' facts giving rise to the dispute. Incidental facts such as the location of an office or account are insufficient to establish jurisdiction when the underlying events occurred elsewhere, as this would turn the court into a general forum for pan-national disputes.
Result: Petition dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate jurisdictional forum.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks contractual relief for project mismanagement and breach of obligations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. territorial jurisdiction requires material cause of action, not merely the situs of the respondent. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. dismissal of petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to approach appropriate forum. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
1. The petition is for the following reliefs:
“A. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 1 NBCC (India) Limited directing it to forthwith cause the execution of the Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA) in the format as may be approved by this Court or as may be mutually agreed, between the Petitioner/Petitioner's nominees/sub-allottees and the Court Appointed Receiver/NBCC, without further delay or conditions, and/or
B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 2 UCO Bank directing it to forthwith provide to the Petitioner certified copies of the bank account statements of the designated Supreme Court monitored account titled "Receiver Amp New Unit Sale of Golf Homes Phase II" for the period from June 2025 to date, and further to provide monthly statements on a regular basis, and/or
C. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 1, NBCC (India) Limited directing it to forthwith provide the Petitioner with a fully constructed and finished Sample Flat (3BHK and 4BHK), gallery space and site office at the Aspire Golf Homes (Phase-II) project site, within a fixed timeline to be determined by this Court, and/or
D. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 1 NBCC (India) Limited restraining it from floatingany Channel Partner tenders, sub-auction notices or small lot tenders for the inventory comprised in the 2 towers namely Ganga and Saraswati retained with Respondent No.1, or from engaging or permitting any Channel Partners to market or sell units from the said 2 towers, thereby creating unfair competition with the Petitioner, and/or
E. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 1 NBCC (India) Limited directing it to ensure that construction at the Aspire Golf Homes (Phase-II) project strictly follows the approved "list of makes" and "schedule of finishes" as per the tender/project specifications, to permit the Petitioner to appoint an independent third-party quality control agency to monitor construction quality, and to undertake forthwith rectification of the identified deficiencies including concrete leaks and substandard structural elements, and/or
F. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 1 NBCC (India) Limited and/or the Court Appointed Receiver directing that the amount of Rs. 1,30,84,73,835/- (Rupees One Hundred Thirty Crores Eighty-Four Lakhs Seventy-Three Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Five) being the balance amount of the forfeited EMD of M/s Mansan Builders Private Limited and as specifically referred to and assigned by Mansan Builders Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 20.01.2026 be forthwith credited towards the Petitioner's payment account under the LOI dated 14.07.2025, thereby reducing the Petitioner's outstanding payment liability by the said amount, and/or
G. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Show Cause Notice dated 20.03.2026 issued by the Court Appointed Receiver, insofar as it threatens cancellation of the LOI dated 14.07.2025 and forfeiture of the amounts deposited by the Petitioner, as the said notice is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, violative of the principles of natural justice, and has been issued without taking into account the Respondent No. 1's own reciprocal obligations and defaults, and/or
H. Issue a Writ of M
