Synopsis

This judgment by the Delhi High Court dismisses a writ petition filed by a 72-year-old advocate and Notary Public from Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, challenging the cancellation of his certificate of practice as a Notary by the Central Government. The disciplinary action arose from allegations of improper notarisation of documents relating to a trust in Maharashtra. The court held that although the impugned order was passed by an authority in Delhi (the Notary Cell), the material, essential, and integral cause of action arose entirely in Maharashtra, where the alleged misconduct, the FIR, and the inquiry occurred. Invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens, the court refused to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction, dismissed the petition, and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate High Court (likely the Bombay High Court) for relief.

1. Heading for the judgment

Citation: Shri John David Kusmode v. Union of India, Under Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Notary Cell & Ors., W.P.(C) 3541/2026, decided on 19.03.2026 (Delhi High Court)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav (Single Judge)
Core Law: Constitutional Law (Article 226 – Territorial Jurisdiction), Doctrine of Forum Conveniens, Notaries Act, 1952.Delhi High Court dismisses writ petition against cancellation of notary certificate, holds that situs of the impugned order alone does not confer jurisdiction when the core lis is centered outside Delhi.

2. Legal framework

This judgment is a significant exposition of the principles governing territorial jurisdictio

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