$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2254/2025 and CM APPL. 10635/2025 MEGHALAYA OXYGEN PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate.

versus OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.

R.V. Prabhat, Mr. Daksh Pandit, Mr.Amit Gupta, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr. Yash Wardhan Sharma & Mr. Naman, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 10.02.2026

1. The Court vide order dated 28.01.2026, has noted the submissions made by Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned ASG, who had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition before this Court on the ground that the agreement was executed at Agartala, the enquiry was ordered and conducted there, the show-cause notice and the impugned order were issued from Agartala, the reply, thereto, was also submitted before the Agartala office of the respondent, and that the mere fact that the respondent’s Head Office is situated in Delhi, does not confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Hon’ble Court, as no part of the cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction.

2. The submissions were opposed by the petitioner stating that the Government e-market place GeM portal earlier closed the complaint against the petitioner at Delhi and Section 10 of the Integrity Pact dated 02.04.2022 confers jurisdiction at the registered office of the principal i.e., at New Delhi, therefore, the Court at Delhi would have jurisdiction.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relies on prayers (d) and (e) for direction to constitute IEM for the purpose of adjudicating the present dispute, and therefore, he submits that at least this part of the prayer is directly amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. He seeks to place reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr, (2004) 6 SCC 254., and Alchemist Ltd. & Anr. v. State Bank of Sikkim & Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 335. He also places reliance on the decisions of this Court, in the cases of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.,, (2011) SCC OnLine Del 3162 Vishnu Security Services v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2012 (129) DRJ 661 (DB), and Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. & Ors. V. Heinz India (P) Limited⁵, and submits that the principle of forum conveniens should be applied as a last resort.

4. Having considered the overall conspectus of the fact and situation, the Court find that the material, integral and essential cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The prayers (d) and (e) should not be the sole factor to entertain the writ petition by this Court. The said prayer can very well be made before the jurisdictional High Court within whose jurisdiction the essential, material and integral cause of action has arisen. The cardinal prayer, which is indispensable and integral is to set-aside the

order of blacklisting. The same is the genesis of the entire dispute. It is this prayer would determine the cause of action.

5. Even assuming a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, the same again cannot be the sole determinative factor to entertain the instant writ petition. The said position has been explained by the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr (supra) which reads as under:

“30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of casue of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinateive factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to excercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.”

6. The Court has also taken the said position in LN Malaviya Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. National Highway Authority of India & Ors.,