Synopsis

The petitioners, one of two rival state-level judo associations in Tamil Nadu, sought a writ of mandamus against the Judo Federation of India (JFI), which has its registered office in Delhi, for recognition as the legitimate representative of Tamil Nadu. The JFI had recognised the other association (respondent no.2). The Delhi High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, holding that the material and substantial part of the cause of action arose in Tamil Nadu (where the dispute between the two associations is located), and not merely because the JFI’s office and the impugned recognition order are located in Delhi. The court invoked the doctrine of forum conveniens and relegated the petitioners to the jurisdictional High Court (Madras High Court). The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the proper court.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

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

Date of Decision: 16th April 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) 17198/2025 (2026:DHC:3811)

Core Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 20 (territorial jurisdiction); Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction); Doctrine of forum conveniens.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

W.p.(c) 17198 of 2025 and cm appl. 70744 of 2025

Tamil nadu judo association & anr (petitioners) vs. Judo federation of india & ors (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice purushaindra kumar kaurav

Date: 16th april, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Constitution of india, 1950 – article 226 (territorial jurisdiction o

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