The Delhi High Court has stated that, with the advent of technology, it is no longer appropriate to consider only the parties’ convenience when determining jurisdiction. The Court believes that it would be narrow-minded to assume that only the aggrieved party’s convenience should be considered when determining jurisdiction.

The Court observed that the geographical barriers have been transcended in the contemporary era, and technology has made courts accessible from remote corners of the country. Thus, the convenience of the parties cannot be the only criterion for determining jurisdiction, and it must be in line with the constitutional scheme envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In this case, the petitioner received an impugned order from SEBI that communicated the revocation and withdrawal of a Settlement Order for “failure to comply with the Settlement Order.” The petitioner filed writ petitions, praying for the order to be set aside. The issue was whether the Court was the appropriate forum for deciding the writ petitions and granting the reliefs. The Court was called upon to adjudicate to what extent, if any, had the cause of action in the writ petitions accrued in the Court’s territorial jurisdiction.

The Court referred to the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and its interplay with the doctrine of forum conveniens. The Court emphasised that the jurisdiction must be determined based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this context, the court observed that the integral, essential, and material part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Even assuming that a small part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, applying the principles of forum conveniens, the court did not find it appropriate to entertain the instant writ petitions.