Aastha Electricals v. Union of India Ministry of Power & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/8570/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Forum conveniens; territorial jurisdiction of High Court; writ petition; material cause of action arising outside Delhi (Dehradun); location of respondent's office in Delhi not determinative; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.; Energy Efficiency Service Limited; Nagar Nigam, Dehradun; sub-contractor; CAG/CVC/CBI inquiry into misappropriation of public funds; arbitration cases pending between parties; liberty to approach jurisdictional court; rights and contentions left open; W.P.(C) 8570/2023; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.; decided 19.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional court; all rights and contentions of the parties left open. No relief on prayer (b). ¶¶31

Aastha Electricals Vs Union of India Ministry of Power & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional court; all rights and contentions of the parties left open. No relief on prayer (b).

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court of Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition, the material cause of action having arisen at Dehradun, although the offices of respondent no.2 and respondent no.1 are located in Delhi. +1 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

The material, integral and essential cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

The mere presence of the office of respondent no.2 and of respondent no.1 (the decision-making authority) in Delhi is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

The controversy between the parties is intrinsically rooted in the work awarded to the petitioner by respondent no.2 at Dehradun, with several cases including arbitrations pending between the parties.ratio¶¶26
Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, and applying the forum conveniens principle drawn from Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr., the Court found that the petition deserved to be dismissed on the ground of forum conveniens.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., oral), W.P.(C) 8570/2023, decided 19.03.2026 — Aastha Electricals, sub-contractor of respondent no.2 (Energy Efficiency Service Limited), which held a contract from Nagar Nigam, Dehradun (respondent no.3), pressed prayer (b) seeking inquiry through CAG/CVC/CBI into alleged mismanagement and misappropriation of public funds by respondent no.2. The Court held that the material, integral and essential cause of action arose at Dehradun, outside its territorial jurisdiction, and that the mere presence of the offices of respondent no.2 and respondent no.1 in Delhi was not a sufficient ground to invoke its jurisdiction. Noting several pending cases between the parties, including arbitrations, and applying the forum conveniens principle from Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr., the Court found the petition deserving dismissal on the ground of forum conveniens and disposed of it with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional court; all rights and contentions were left open.

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 8570/2023

¶4

Date of Decision: 19.03.2026

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶6

AASTHA ELECTRICALS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Asutosh Lohia, Ms. Shraddha Bhargava, Ms. Mansi Rose Taneja, Ms. Rishika Jain, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF POWER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms Arunima Dwivedi CGSC with Ms Himanshi Singh Adv Ms Monalisha Pradhan, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Mukul Singh CGSC, Mr. Aryan Dhaka, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Samdarshi Sanjay Ms. Monika Sharma Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey Mr. Ashish Kumar Sharma, Advocates for R-2. Dr. Aman Rab and Mrs. Payal Bhatia, Advocates for R-3.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶9

J U D G E M E N T

¶10

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Signature Not Verified

¶12

Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date17:35:28 :24. 03.2026 W.P.(C) 8570/2023

¶13

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

It appears that respondent no.2-Energy Efficiency Service Limited was awarded the contract by the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun i.e. Respondent no.3 herein, in this particular case, and the petitioner was the sub-contractor of respondent no.2.

¶16

The petitioner seeks certain enquiry against the conduct of respondent no.2. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner presses for prayer „b‟ of the petition, which reads as under:

¶17

“ b. Grant a Writ/Order/Direction directing inquiries to be made through the offices of CAG/CVC/CBI into the mismanagement and misappropriation public funds in Respondent No. 2 prompted and promoted by Respondent No. 1; ”

¶18

The overall facts and circumstances, however, indicate that respondent no.2 essentially had sub-let the work to be performed by the petitioner with respect to the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 has performed the work throughout the country and has committed illegalities and irregularities at various places. The petitioner, therefore, invokes the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that respondent no.2 is in Delhi and respondent no.1‟s Office, who has to conduct the enquiry is also within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶20

The Court, however, finds that the material, integral and essential cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Merely, the Office of respondent no. 2 is in Delhi and respondent no.1, which is the decision making authority, is in Delhi, should not be the sole reason to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. It be also noted that there seems to be various cases pending between the parties including arbitration cases. The controversy is intrinsically rooted trough the work

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date17:35:28 :24. 03.2026 W.P.(C) 8570/2023

¶24

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

awarded to the petitioner by respondent N0.2 at Dehradun.

¶27

The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. ,¹ , has held as under:

¶28

“Forum conveniens

¶29

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] .]”

¶30

Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, the Court finds that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of Forum conveniens .

¶31