[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Vishnu Kumar Gupta vs Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of ... on 7 April, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~89
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4516/2026 & CM APPL. 22007/2026
Date of Decision: 07.04.2026
VISHNU KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Alankrit Bhatnagar, Mr.
Shashank Tiwari, Advocates.
versus
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA &
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is at Noida, Uttar Pradesh and respondent no.3 against
whom the complaint was made is at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
2. It appears that on account of the alleged misconduct of respondent
no.3, who allegedly gave a wrong opinion before the Uttar Pradesh Real
Estate Regulatory Authority, at Lucknow, the petitioner had made the
complaint before the respondent no. 1- Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India. The concerned authority has exonerated respondent no.3 from the
charges. The petitioner, therefore, is aggrieved by the said order.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court merely on the ground that
respondent no.1 is situated in Delhi, and therefore, a part of cause of action
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:08.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:00:49 KUMAR KAURAV
has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. The Court, however, finds that the substantial, material and integral
part of cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court, where
respondent no.3 allegedly furnished the wrong opinion. Even the primary
area of practice of respondent no.3 seems to be at Lucknow. The mere
factum of the situs of respondent no.1 being in Delhi cannot be the sole
factor for entertaining the writ petition.
5. This Court in the case of Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of
Delhi and Ors.,1 in paragraphs 36 to 38, 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.
37. Naturally, being the capital of the Country, various authorities and
bodies having pan-India jurisdiction would be located within the
jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because the decision making authority
happens to be in Delhi, ought not to be the sole reason to entertain a lis in
this Court. The decision, no doubt, may be passed in the national capital,
but it is usually against persons situated outside Delhi; and even more
importantly, for actions which took place beyond the borders of this Court.
The act of giving a hearing in Delhi, or the passing of an order in Delhi, is
merely a result of a body/authority being situated in the national capital, it
has nothing to do with the lis, the offending action, the legal injury or the
foundational facts on the basis of which action is being taken.
38. The case-law cited above, makes repeated reference to "dominant
facts", and facts which are "material, essential and integral" to the lis in
question. In most cases, the fact that the order is passed, or the head office
is located, or that opportunity of hearing was afforded, within the
jurisdiction of this Court is completely immaterial, non-essential, and non-
2026:DHC:1605
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:08.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:00:49 KUMAR KAURAV
integral to the dispute in question. Any of the aforenoted three aspects
could very well have taken place in another part of the Country, it is for
the sole reason that Delhi is the national capital, that, in most cases these
factors get connected to the jurisdiction of this Court. From another lens,
it may be seen that regardless of what the underlying facts or legal
injury/infringement may be, the order impugned would, in an
overwhelming number of cases be passed from Delhi. If this be the case,
can this constant factum, which shall remain present in each case, be
considered a "dominant fact" or a "material, essential and integral" fact?
The answer must be in the negative."
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v.
Union of India and Anr.,2 in para 30 has held that the Court, in appropriate
cases, may relegate the parties to the jurisdictional High Court, where
material, integral and essential part of cause of action has arisen.
7. In the instant case, while invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens,
this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the jurisdictional
High Court.
8. The petition stands dismissed.
9. All rights and contentions are left open.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 7, 2026/p
(2004) 6 SCC 254.
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:08.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:00:49 KUMAR KAURAV
