[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Vasudev Pandurang Rathod And Ors vs Bar Council Of India And Ors on 23 February, 2026
$~86
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2510/2026
Date of Decision: 23.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
VASUDEV PANDURANG RATHOD AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Niteen Kumar Sinha and Mr.
Chirag Joshi, Advs. (Thr. VC)
versus
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners are admittedly residing in Wardha, Maharashtra.
They claim to have invested their savings in Yashwant Urban Credit
Cooperative Society Limited, Wardha, Maharashtra. Alleging financial
irregularities and misappropriation of the office bearers of the said Society,
proceedings were initiated under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,
1960 (hereinafter "said Act"). An inquiry was conducted under Section 88
of the said Act, and a report was submitted on 30.05.2018 indetifying
financial discrepencies and imposing a liability of Rs. 95,18,514/- on the
responsible parties.
2. However, owing to purported inaction of the appointed
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
13:00:44 Page 1 of 5 KUMAR KAURAV
administrators, the petitioners were constrined to file a writ petition bearing
W.P (St.) No. 5525/2019 before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
through respondent no. 3-Advocate. In relation to the conduct of respondent
no. 3 in filing and proceeding with the said writ petition, a disciplinary
complaint no. 179/2022 was filed by the petitioners against respondent no.
3, before the State Bar Council of Maharasthra and Goa. The said complaint
was dismissed vide order dated 26.06.2023, assailing which on 17.12.2024
an appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 was filed by the
petitioners before the Disciplinary Committee (respondent no. 2) of the Bar
Council of India (respondent no. 1). It is this appeal which the petitioners
seek to get listed and heard by respondent nos. 1 and 2.
3. The sole reason to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court seems to be
that the respondents 1 and 2 are situated within the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi,1
took note of the decisions in Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban
Development Corp.,2 Riddhima Singh v. Central Board of Secondary
Education,3 Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital v.
Uttarakhand University of Ayurveda and Ors.,4 Michael Builders and
Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Medical Commission and Ors.,5 which
declare that the situs of the head office/registered office of the respondent,
does not determine whether the Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction
to entertain a writ petition.
5. The Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. importantly noted, at paragraph no.
2026:DHC:1605.
2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892.
2023 SCC OnLine Del 7168.
2024:DHC:6903-DB
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
13:00:44 Page 2 of 5 KUMAR KAURAV
36:
"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."
6. On the issue of a claimant approaching this Court on the sole-ground
of the respondent-authority, an a pan-India statutory body, being situated
within the jurisdiction of this Court, it was observed at paragrahph nos. 37-
38:
"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-
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
2024:DHC:7146.
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
13:00:44 Page 3 of 5 KUMAR KAURAV
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."
7. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the substance of a matter must be
adjudged, and not the unchanging constant which is present in every petition
against a State-authority, to arrive at a conclusion on whether to entertain a
petition in the context of territorial jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.
At paragraph no. 42 this Court observed:
"42. It is the substance of the matter which the Court must consider in
determining the connection with Delhi. An order being passed by an
authority in Delhi is an unchanging constant. This static/uniform facet,
which is unmoved by the nature of the lis, ought not to determine where
territorial jurisdiction would lie."
8. In the facts of the instant case, there may be a part of cause of action
which has arisen in Delhi, however, the same should not be the sole reason
to entertain the instant petition.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v.
Union of India and Anr.,6 has held 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. The material portion of the aforenoted decision reads
as under:
"Forum conveniens
(2004) 6 SCC 254.
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
13:00:44 Page 4 of 5 KUMAR KAURAV
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 of the above, petition stands dismissed. Liberty is, however,
granted in favour of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court
to agitate the instant lis, if so advised.
11. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
aks/ap
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
13:00:44 Page 5 of 5 KUMAR KAURAV
