[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
M/S R.K. Roadline vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd & Ors on 7 April, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~99
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4558/2026, CM APPL. 22224/2026 & CM APPL.
22225/2026
Date of Decision: 07.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S R.K. ROADLINE .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Rahul Shukla and Ms Bachita
Baruah Shukla, Advs.
versus
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP. LTD & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kamlendra Mishra CGSC with
Mr. Krishna Pandey, Adv. and Mr.
Shaurya Aditya Singh, GP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition is for, inter alia, setting aside the order dated 30.03.2026,
issued by respondent no. 1, whereby, the Letter of Acceptance dated
26.08.2025 awarded to the petitioner has been terminated.
2. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the contract was for
'bulk transportation for Jammu and Kashmir-State'. The jurisdiction of this
Court has been invoked on the ground that contract, impugned show-cause
notice, and the impugned termination order have all been issued from Delhi
and the seat of arbitration of disputes arising out of the contract being here.
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV
3. In M/s R.P. Transporters v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Lts. And
Ors.,1 this Court was faced with similar facts and dismissed the petition.
4. Even in the present case, the material, essential, and integral part of
the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Merely
because the contract was entered into in Delhi and all the impugned
communications were issued from here cannot be the determinative factor
when the underlying work was for Jammu and Kashmir.
5. The Court in Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and
Ors.2 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
2026:DHC:2947
2026:DHC:1605
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV
jurisdiction of this Court is completely immaterial, non-essential, and non-
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. For all these reasons, the petition stands dismissed.
7. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the
jurisdictional High Court.
8. All rights and contentions are left open.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 7, 2026/p
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV
