9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t herein on grounds of forum non-conveniens without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter (the 'Impugned Judgement'). 2. The facts of the case to the extent relevant for the present appeal are that the Appellant was a student in Respondent No. 3 School (the 'Respondent School'). However, on 02.04.2018, the Appellant's father received a message from the Respondent School that due to non-payment of fees for the academic year 2017-2018, the Appellant was debarred from attending the Respondent School. 3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred W.P.(C) 6007/2019 (the 'First Writ Petition') before this Court seeking issuance of directions against Respondent No. 1 ('CBSE') to permit the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years in violation of RTE Act." Without adjudicating on the merits of the matter, the Ld. Single Judge vide the Impugned Judgement placed reliance on the binding dictum of this Court in M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd vs. Union of India & Ors 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162. and dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of non-conveniens, noting that the Appellant has attempted to found territorial jurisdiction in Delhi merely because CBSE is headquartered in Delhi. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Ld. Single Judge erred in not considering that Clause 18.3.2 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws explicitly states that the legal jurisdiction for suits filed against the CBSE shall be the Union Territory of Delhi. Learned Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling Agro (supra) where it was held as follows: "31. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the convenience of all the parties before it. The convenience in its ambit and sweep would include the existence of more appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for just adjudication of the controversy and such other ancillary aspects. The balance of convenience is also to be taken note of. Be it noted, the Apex Court has clearly stated in the cases of Kusum Ingots (supra), Mosaraf Hossain Khan (supra) and Ambica Industries (supra) about the applicability of the doctrine of forum conveniens while opining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court..." 11. More significantly, a Division Bench of this Court in Shristi Udaipur Hotels vs. Housing and Urban Development Corp 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892 dealt with a similar issue and observed that where the most vital parts of the cause of action have arisen elsewhere, the mere presence of the registered office of the Respondent in Delhi would be irrelevant in determining territorial jurisdiction as it amounts to a miniscule part of the cause of action. Relevant portions of the judgement are as under: "30. In the present case, the mere location of the registered office of the respondent/Corporation in Delhi, cannot be a ground to canvass that the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, unles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent/Corporation in Delhi or the facility extended to the petitioner to address any correspondence to the respondent/Corporation and/or remit moneys due or payable under the Loan Agreement at Delhi, would have to be treated as irrelevant factors, being a miniscule part of the cause of action. By no stretch of imagination can these factors be treated as conclusive for determining the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 32. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation that neither the factors mentioned by the petitioner, nor the circumstances would by themselves confer territorial jurisdiction on this court for maintaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant. The clause reads as under: "18.3 Jurisdiction to file suits 18.3.2 The legal jurisdiction for the suits to be filed against the Board shall be the Union Territory of Delhi only." 14. The contention furthered by the Appellant relies on a strict interpretation of the Clause which would in effect, defeat the doctrine of forum conveniens and is therefore not acceptable to this Court. It must be noted that the doctrine of forum conveniens is invoked to determine the most appropriate forum for adjudication of a dispute and this exercise is undertaken not only for the convenience of the parties but also in the interest of justice. Therefore, this Clause cannot be read in a matter that would permit all cases filed against the CBSE, re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
