[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Rachana Kumari vs Assotech Limited And Anr on 16 April, 2026
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14924/2025
Date of Decision: 16.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
RACHANA KUMARI
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saket Singh, Advocate.
versus
ASSOTECH LIMITED AND ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Ms Avni Singh Panel Counsel for
GNCTD with Adv Abhishek Yadav,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition is for the following reliefs:
(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other writ/order
or directions to Direct the Builder/Promoter to hand over the
physical possession Unit/Shop No. LFG-17A at Lower Ground
Floor, in the Project Hi-Street (The Nest), Crossings Republic,
Ghaziabad.
(ii) Issue a writ and/or any other order or directions to Direct the
Builder/Promoter to provide the delayed interest as per RERA Act;
and cancel the license of agent as per section 10 of RERA act.
(iii) pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice.
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:18.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:09:28 KUMAR KAURAV
2. The petition is seeking directions to the respondent no.1 - Assotech
Limited to hand over physical possession of Unit/Shop No. LGF-17A
("Unit") at Lower Ground Floor in the project "Hi-Street (The Nest),
Crossings Republik, Ghaziabad".
3. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner had booked the
aforesaid unit with respondent no. 1 in a project situated at Crossings
Republik, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner entered into a Builder
Buyer Agreement with the respondent and claims to have paid the entire
consideration amount. However, possession of the unit has not been handed
over to the petitioner.
4. The project in question is situated in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and
the transaction, including execution of the Builder Buyer Agreement and
payments, relates to the said project.
5. It appears that the entire cause of action, if any, has arisen outside the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court, inasmuch as the project is situated in
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and the relevant transactions also pertain to the
said location. The petitioner, therefore, will have to approach the
jurisdictional Court, where the material, integral and essential part of cause
of action has arisen.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v.
Union of India and Anr.,1 in paragraph 30 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
(2004) 6 SCC 254.
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:18.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:09:28 KUMAR KAURAV
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] .]"
7. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid and applying the principle of
forum conveniens as the material, integral and essential part of the cause of
action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the petition, along
with pending application, stands dismissed.
8. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach
the jurisdictional High Court.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 16, 2026
Aks/ss
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:18.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:09:28 KUMAR KAURAV
