The Delhi High Court observed that with the advent of technology in contemporary times, it is inappropriate to assume that only the convenience of parties must be considered while determining jurisdiction.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that, "it would be inappropriate and myopic to assume that while determining the jurisdiction, only the convenience of the aggrieved party approaching the court has to be looked into. In fact, with the advent of technology in contemporary times, the courts have transcended the geographical barriers and are now accessible from remote corners of the country. Therefore, the convenience of the parties cannot be the sole criterion for the determination of jurisdiction considering the broader perspective of dynamism of technology and increased access to justice. The determination of cause of action and territorial jurisdiction has to be in line with the constitutional scheme envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

Senior Counsel Sandeep Sethi, along with others, appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Counsel JJ Bhatt, along with others, appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the petitioner received the impugned order from SEBI, communicating the revocation and withdrawal of a Settlement Order in terms of Regulation 28 of the SEBI Regulations for "failure to comply with the Settlement Order". The writ petitions were filed, praying for the order to be set aside.

The issue was whether the Court was the appropriate forum for deciding the writ petitions and granting the reliefs. To that extent, the Court was called upon to adjudicate to what extent, if any, had the cause of action in the writ petitions accrued in the Court's territorial jurisdiction.

Reference was made to the cope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and its interplay with the doctrine of forum conveniens.

The Court stressed that the law relating to the doctrine of forum conveniens makes it explicitly clear that the jurisdiction must be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. In that context, it was observed that, "It is, thus, seen that under the facts of the instant matters, the integral, essential and material part of the cause of action had arisen with the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon‘ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay and even assuming that a slender part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, applying the principles of forum conveniens...this court does not deem it appropriate to entertain the instant writ petitions".

In light of the same, the petitions were dismissed while giving liberty to the parties to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

Cause Title: Bharat Nidhi Limited vs Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment