[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
M/S R.P. Transporters vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & Ors on 6 April, 2026
$~106
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4437/2026
Date of Decision: 06.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S R.P. TRANSPORTERS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Rahul Shukla and Ms. Bachita
Baruah, Advs.
versus
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP. LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar Raheja, Mr. Sashi
Shekhar and Mr. Anant Vijay Singh,
Advs. for HPCL.
Mr. Ishkaran Singh Bhandari, CGSC
with Mr. Piyush Yadav, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 21751/2026 (EXEMPTION)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4437/2026 and CM APPL. 21750/2026
3. The instant petition has been filed seeking following directions:
"a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:08.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:00:49 KUMAR KAURAV
Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the impugned termination order
dated 30.03.2026 issued by Respondent No.1 (Annexure P- 1), whereby the
Letter of Acceptance (LoA) dated 05.09.2025 awarded to the Petitioners has
been terminated; and
b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.1
to restore and give full effect to the LoA dated 05.09.2025 and to permit the
Petitioner to continue and perform the contractual obligations thereunder;
and
c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the stipulated
period of four months prescribed for completion of formalities of transfer of
ownership of Tank Trucks under the Letter of Acceptance (LoA) is directory
in nature and not mandatory and that non-compliance within the said
period in the facts and circumstances of the present case does not warrant
termination of the LoA; and
d) Pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in facts and circumstances of the case."
4. Heard Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
5. The petition is for setting aside order dated 30.03.2026 issued by
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited whereby, the contract dated
05.09.2025 awarded to the petitioner has been terminated. The contract in
question was for transportation in the State of Punjab. The jurisdiction of
this Court has been invoked on the ground that the impugned order and the
contract was issued from New Delhi.
6. Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath is correct in contending that a part of cause of
action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, the same
should not be the sole reason to entertain the writ petition. The Court will
have to consider where the material, essential and integral cause of action
has arisen.
7. In the instant case, the transportation was for the state of Punjab. The
Court in the case The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi,1
2026:DHC:1605.
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:08.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:00:49 KUMAR KAURAV
while considering all earlier decisions in paragraph no. 36 has held as under:
"36. A petitioner who approaches this Court to assail a decision of an
authority situated in Delhi, when the underlying cause for the said
decision lies elsewhere, effectively attempts to make this High Court a
mini-pan-India Superior Court exercising jurisdiction over all events
which take place throughout this Country. There is no gainsaying with the
proposition that every High Court is competent to adjudicate upon a lis
which arises from events or actions taking place within its territory.
Merely because the ultimate order, which is based on events taking place
outside Delhi and takes cognizance of actions outside of Delhi, is passed
within the jurisdiction of this Court, a writ petition ought not be
entertained by this Court."
8. It is thus seen that, what has happened in Delhi is the ancillary part of
cause of action. With respect to second submissions that the parties by way
of agreement have decided the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. Needless, to say
that the constitutional courts are not bound by the agreement arrived at by
the parties. The Court will have to adjudicate the list on the basis of the
constitutional provisions. The said provision has also been taken a note of by
this Court in the case of The Indure Pvt. Ltd in paragraph no. 36.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v.
Union of India and Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254 has held as under:
"Forum conveniens
30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause
of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the
same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor
compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate
cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by
invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v.
Dewan Jagbir Sawhney [AIR 1941 Cal 670 : ILR (1941) 1 Cal 490] ,
Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945) 49 CWN 357 : AIR 1949 Cal 495] ,
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. [1997
CWN 122] , S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India [(1994) 1 CHN 445] and
New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR 1994 Del 126] .]"
10. In view thereof, the Court relegates the petitioner to the jurisdictional
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:08.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:00:49 KUMAR KAURAV
High Court where the material, essential and integral part of cause of action
has arisen.
11. The petition along with pending application stands disposed of.
12. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 6, 2026/Sh/ss
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:08.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:00:49 KUMAR KAURAV
