Synopsis

The petitioner, a defence contractor, challenged termination of a contract and forfeiture of bank guarantee by the Indian Air Force. The contract was awarded from Nagpur, pre‑dispatch inspections took place in Pune, and the impugned termination order was issued from Nagpur. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, arguing that its registered office was in Delhi, some respondents were situated in Delhi, and the arbitration clause provided for seat of arbitration in Delhi. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the “dominant” and “integral” facts giving rise to the cause of action occurred outside Delhi. The fact that an order is passed in Delhi or that a private agreement chooses Delhi as arbitration seat does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court under Article 226.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav (Single Judge)

Date of Decision: 4th May 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) ... /2026 (2026:DHC:4240)

Core Law: Constitutional Law – Article 226 (territorial jurisdiction of High Courts); Doctrine of forum non conveniens; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – jurisdiction clause in contract.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Writ petition (civil) no. ... /2026

M/s neometrix defence ltd (petitioner) vs. Assistant chief of air staff (procurement) & ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice purushaindra kumar kaurav

Date: 4th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Constitution of india, 1950 – article 226 (territorial jurisdiction of high courts)

• Code of civil procedure, 1908 – sections 16 to 20 (place of suing) – principles applied analogously

• Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 – clause providing seat of arbitration (cannot bind constitutional court)

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.