Dismissed¶24

National Agriculture and Consumer Multi State Cooperative of India Limited (Namco Ltd.) v. Union of India and Another

Delhi HC6 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/1690/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Forum conveniens; territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court; fraction of cause of action not material, integral or essential; order passed at Delhi not sole determinant of jurisdiction; fresh writ petition after withdrawal of earlier writ petition on same cause of action; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254; dismissal of writ petition with liberty; NAMCO Ltd. v. Union of India; W.P.(C) 1690/2026; Delhi High Court 06.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Once the petitioner has withdrawn an earlier writ petition on the same cause of action, there is no reason to entertain a fresh petition on that cause of action. ¶16

National Agriculture and Consumer Multi State Cooperative of India Limited (Namco Ltd.) Vs Union of India and Another — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court of Delhi should entertain a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action where the petitioner had earlier withdrawn a writ petition and invokes the jurisdiction of this Court solely because the order was passed at Delhi.

¶16

Court's answer

Once the petitioner has withdrawn an earlier writ petition on the same cause of action, there is no reason to entertain a fresh petition on that cause of action.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The mere fact that the order was passed from Delhi should not be the sole factor determining the jurisdiction of the Court; the petitioner invoked this Court's jurisdiction only on that count.

¶16

Key takeaways

Applying the forum conveniens principle from Kusum Ingots, the fraction of cause of action arising from the order having been passed at Delhi is not material, integral or essential, and the petition deserved to be dismissed with the same liberty as was granted earlier.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.), order dated 06.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 1690/2026: National Agriculture and Consumer Multi State Cooperative of India Limited (NAMCO Ltd.) v. Union of India and Another. The petitioner, having earlier withdrawn a writ petition on the same cause of action, sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court solely on the ground that the order had been passed at Delhi. Following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254, the Court held that the place of passing of the order should not be the sole factor determining jurisdiction; the fraction of cause of action so arising is not material, integral or essential, and under the doctrine of forum conveniens the party can be relegated to the Court where the material, essential and integral part of the cause of action arose. The writ petition was dismissed with the same liberty as was granted earlier. The companion exemption application (CM APPL. 8173/2026) was allowed subject to all just exceptions and disposed of.

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1690/2026 and CM APPL. 8172/2026

¶4

NATIONAL AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER MULTI STATE COOPERATIVE OF INDIA LIMITED (NAMCO LTD.)

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shrey Kumar, Advocate versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

¶7

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Shashank Bajpai CGSC with Ms.Aashna Mehra, Mr. Vatsal Tripathi, Mr. Gvond Singh Chauhan, Advocates. Mr. Dhruv Sharma (G.P.) Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 06.02.2026

¶12

CM APPL. 8173/2026 (for exemption)

¶13

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The application stands disposed of.

¶15

W.P.(C) 1690/2026 and CM APPL. 8172/2026

¶16

There does not seem to be any reason to entertain a fresh petition on the same cause of action, once the petitioner withdrew a writ petition earlier. The order having been passed from Delhi should not be the sole factor which would determine the jurisdiction of the Court. The petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court only on this count.

¶17

The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v.

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 12:56:41

¶20

Union of India and Anr. ,¹ has held that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the one Court and the material, essential and integral part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of another Court, the principle of forum conveniens can be invoked and the party can be relegated to the Court where the material, essential and integral part of cause of action has arisen. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision is extracted as under:-

¶21

“ Forum conveniens

¶22

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] .] ”

¶23

The passing of the order at Delhi would have given a fraction of cause of action, the same cannot be said to be material, integral or essential.

¶24

In view thereof, with the same liberty as was granted earlier, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 6, 2026 Nc/ksr

¶27

1 (2004) 6 SCC 254.

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 12:56:41

National Agriculture and Consumer Multi State Cooperative of India Limited (Namco Ltd.) v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Agriculture and Consumer Multi State Cooperative of India Limited (Namco Ltd.) v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaslon Oversea Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax GST

Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Karamveer and Ors. Vs MCD and Ors.

Hemant Sharma Vs Rail Land Development Authority and Anr.

Rohit Aggarwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Rita & Ors. Vs Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors.

Anuj Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Sri Saudan Singh Institute of Higher Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Satish Sanpal Vs Bureau of Immigration

Rajendra Lal Virmani Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Kataria Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ami Sisodiya Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Airport Authority of India

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. through Its Managing Director Vs Airport Authority of India (Aai) through Dgm/Jt. Gm Engg. (C) Safdarjung Airport, Engineer-in-Charge