In a recent development, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, dismissed an appeal (LPA 729/2023) filed by Riddhima Singh through her father Shailendra Kumar Singh against the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as “CBSE”) and others. The court, in its decision dated November 1, 2023, highlighted the principle of forum conveniens and emphasized that the appellant's grievance was not directly attributable to the Respondent, despite its headquarters being in Delhi.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case revolves around Riddhima Singh, represented by her father Shailendra Kumar Singh, who was debarred from attending Respondent No.3 School in Uttar Pradesh due to non-payment of fees for the academic year 2017-2018. Following this, Riddhima filed a writ petition seeking directions against the CBSE to allow her to appear for Class X and Class XII examinations. The court, through interlocutory orders, directed the school to readmit Riddhima and conduct Grade VII and Grade VIII examinations, both of which she cleared. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition seeking compensation from the Respondent for alleged intentional harassment and mental trauma, citing a delay in Grade VIII examinations.
Contentions of the Parties:
The Petitioner, through her counsel, argued that the legal jurisdiction for suits against the Respondent, as per Clause 18.3.2 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws, is the Union Territory of Delhi. The Petitioner contended that the delay in Grade VIII examinations, leading to her alleged loss of an academic year, occurred in Delhi, making it the appropriate forum for adjudication. The court, however, rejected this strict interpretation of the clause, emphasizing the doctrine of forum conveniens. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner's grievances were not directly attributable to them, as the responsibility for conducting the examinations and the core cause of action lay with the school in Uttar Pradesh. The court upheld this position, highlighting that the most vital part of the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, making it the more appropriate forum for adjudication.
Observations by the Court:
The Petitioner relied on Clause 18.3.2 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws, which stipulates that the legal jurisdiction for suits against the Respondent shall be the Union Territory of Delhi. However, the court rejected the strict interpretation of the clause, asserting that it should not override the doctrine of forum conveniens, which determines the most suitable forum for dispute resolution. The court referred to its decision in Sachin Hindurao Waze vs. UOI & Ors (2022 SCC OnLine Del 3287) where the Delhi High Court held that for a High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226, it is not enough that a part of the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction. Further, the court also noted that it in another case of Shristi Udaipur Hotels vs. Housing and Urban Development Corp (2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892) held that the mere location of the registered office of a party in Delhi is not enough to establish territorial jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the most vital parts of the cause of action must be considered, and the court should decline jurisdiction if the majority of the cause of action arises elsewhere.
The court noted that the crux of the appellant's claim for compensation was the delay in Grade VIII examinations, and the responsibility for conducting these examinations fell on the school in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the most vital part of the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, making it the more appropriate forum for adjudication.
The decision of the Court:
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, stating that the appellant failed to establish a direct connection between her grievances and the actions of the Respondent.
Case Name: Riddhima Singh through her father Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education through its Chairman & Ors
Coram: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Case No.: LPA 729/2023
Advocates of the Appellant: In person
Advocates of the Respondent: Seema Dolo
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
