Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Renu Bhatnagar, JJ
M/S RR FASHION – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C)-19145/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saurabh Kapoor, Muskaan Gupta, Tanya Kumar
For the Respondents: Raktim Gogai, Vivek Nagar, Kaushlendra Dutt, Premtosh K Mishra, Prarabdh Tiwari, Shrey Sharma, Rakesh Kumar, Sunil, Manish Jain, Gulnaz Khan
Mere location of an investigating agency's headquarters or a testing laboratory in Delhi does not confer territorial jurisdiction if the substance of the cause of action (import, seizure, service) arises elsewhere; forum conveniens must be applied.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Territorial jurisdiction - Doctrine of forum conveniens - Cause of action - The mere location of an investigating agency's headquarters or a testing laboratory within the territorial limits of a High Court does not, by itself, constitute a sufficient part of the cause of action to confer jurisdiction, especially when the entire substratum of the dispute - the import, storage, seizure, and service of seizure memos - occurs outside that jurisdiction. (Paras 14-16)
(B) The Full Bench in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. UOI (W.P.
(C) 6570/2010) held that even if a miniscule part of the cause of action arises within a High Court's jurisdiction, the Court may still decline to entertain the petition by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The situs of an appellate or quasi‑judicial authority is not the sole or determinative factor for forum conveniens; the factual matrix of each case must be scrutinised. (Paras 12-13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners imported PVC coated fabrics and similar goods from a Chinese company through four separate import orders. The goods were warehoused in the Special Economic Zone in Tamil Nadu. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Delhi, conducted an inspection and seized the goods under seizure memos issued in May 2025. The samples were sent to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) in New Delhi for testing. The petitioners, located in Tamil Nadu, challenged the seizure memos and test reports before the Delhi High Court. (Paras 4-7)
Findings of Court:
The Court, relying on the Full Bench decision in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd., held that the mere location of DRI headquarters or CRCL in Delhi does not constitute a sufficient part of the cause of action. The import, storage, and seizure took place in Tamil Nadu; the seizure memos were served on the petitioners there; and the laboratory testing in Delhi was incidental. Applying the doctrine of forum conveniens, the Court declined to entertain the petitions and directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate jurisdictional High Court. (Paras 14-18)
Issues: Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions challenging seizure memos issued by DRI, Delhi, and test reports of CRCL, New Delhi, when the goods were imported, stored, and seized in Tamil Nadu, and the petitioners are based there. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The doctrine of forum conveniens requires a court to examine the entire factual matrix to determine the appropriate forum. A isolated administrative or technical action within its limits (such as the location of the investigating agency's head office or a testing laboratory) does not, by itself, confer jurisdiction where the substantive cause of action - the import, seizure, and service of the impugned orders - arises entirely elsewhere. (Paras 14-17) Result : Petitions dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate High Court/forum in accordance with law. (Para 18)
$~53, 54, 56
+ W.P.(C) 19145/2025
M/S RR FASHION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Ms. Muskaan
Gupta & Ms. Tanya Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. RaktimGogai CGSC with Mr.
Vivek Nagar GP and Mr.
Kaushlendra Dutt, Adv.
54 WITH
+ W.P.(C) 19146/2025
M/S YASHI FASHION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Ms. Muskaan
Gupta & Ms. Tanya Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Premtosh K Mishra CGSC with
Mr. Prarabdh Tiwari & Mr. Shrey
Sharma, Advs.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, SPC with Mr.
Sunil & Mr. Vivek Nagar, Advs.
56 AND
+ W.P.(C) 19152/2025
M/S SS IMPEX .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Ms. Muskaan
Gupta & Ms. Tanya Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manish Jain, Senior Panel
Counsel, UOI with Ms. Gulnaz Khan,
Adv.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 79716/2025 (for exemption)
CM APPL. 79718/2025 (for exemption)
CM APPL. 79728/2025 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of.
W.P.(C) 19145/2025
W.P.(C) 19146/2025
W.P.(C) 19152/2025
3. The present petitions have been filed by the Petitioners challenging inter alia certain seizure memos which were issued ordering seizure of goods of the Petitioners.
4. The background giving rise to these petitions is that the Petitioners had imported through four separate import orders, PVC Coated Fabrics, PVC Coated Polyester Fabric & PA Coated Fabric from a Chinese Company. The said imports were effected through the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) located in Tamil Nadu and the said goods are also presently warehoused in Tamil Nadu.
5. The DRI conducted an inspection of the imported goods and seized the goods vide the following seizure memos which stand challenged in the present petitions:
● Seizure Memo dated 28th May, 2025 in W.P.(C) 19145/2025
● Seizure Memos dated 16th May, 2025 and 23rd May, 2025 in W.P.(C) 19146/2025
● Seizure Memo dated 6th May, 2025 in W.P.(C) 19152/2025
(hereinafter, ‘the impugned seizure memos’)
6. Though the impugned seizure memos were issued by DRI, Delhi, the same were served upon the Petitioners, who were also located in Chennai.
7. The challenge in these cases is to the impugned seizure memos, as also to the respective test reports issued by CRCL, New Delhi.
8. A preliminary objection has been taken by the Respondent to the maintainability of these petitions before this Court on the ground that the cause of action actually arises only in Tamilnadu and not in Delhi.
9. Mr. Kapoor, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner controverts this and submits that the concerned DRI is located in Delhi and the laboratory which tested the products is also in Delhi, i.e. CRCL, New Delhi. Hence, a part of the cause of action arises in Delhi.
10. This Court had the occasion to consider another similar matter in W.P.(C) 16441/2025 titled “M/s Halder Enterprises Vs. Union of India &Anr.” wherein after some hearing, the petition was withdrawn for availing of the remedies in accordance with law. The said order is extracted as under:
“1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking quashing of seizure memo dated 26th March, 2025 and 19th May, 2025 in respect of the goods imported under bill of entry nos. 7755125 dated 13th January, 2025 and 7815136 dated 16th January, 2025. Prayer in the present petition is also for
permitting re-export of the goods to the overseas buyers and overseas suppliers as also for provisional release.
3. Mr. Anurag Ojha, ld. SSC takes a preliminary objection that the seizure of goods has taken place in Chennai, therefore, the correct forum to approach is Madras High Court. He also submits that the similarly placed Petitioners have also filed the writ petitions before the Madras High Court.
4. After making some arguments, Mr. Pradeep Jain, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitio
