$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010792952025 + W.P.(CRL) 3396/2025 WEB2TECH SOLUTIONS THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR SACHIN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Kanav Bhatia and Mr.Pawan Mehta, Advocates. versus STATE OF GUJRAT AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Appearance not given. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing Respondent No.3 and the concerned Bank to forthwith defreeze/unfreeze the Petitioner's bank account forthwith; in connection with Ticket No.CCIRU280921-918173; b) Declare the action of Respondent No.1 in freezing the Petitioner’s account as illegal, arbitrary, c) Pass such further order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.” 2. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the averments made in the instant petition. The Court finds that except This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:58:21 the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Delhi, there is no cause of action which can be said to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The State of Gujarat through its concerned Ministry seems to have taken the action against the petitioner, thereupon, Indusind Bank at Haryana has freezed the petitioner’s account. Since, neither the police agency nor the bank situates within the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the petitioner will have to approach the jurisdictional High Court. 4. This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi,1 took note of the decisions in Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban Development Corp.,2 Riddhima Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education,3 Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital v. Uttarakhand University of Ayurveda and Ors.,4 Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Medical Commission and Ors.,5 which declare that the situs of the head office/registered office of the respondent, does not determine whether the Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition. 5. The Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. importantly noted, at para. 36: “36. A petitioner who approaches this Court to assail a decision of an authority situated in Delhi, when the underlying cause for the said decision lies elsewhere, effectively attempts to make this High Court a mini-panIndia Superior Court exercising jurisdiction over all events which take place throughout this Country. There is no gainsaying with the proposition that every High Court is competent to adjudicate upon a lis which arises from events or actions taking place within its territory. Merely because the ultimate order, which is based on events taking place outside Delhi and takes cognizance of actions outside of Delhi, is passed within the jurisdiction of this Court, a writ petition ought not be entertained by this 1 2026:DHC:1605. 2 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892. 3 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7168. 4 2024:DHC:6903-DB 5 2024:DHC:7146. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:58:21 Court.” 6. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the substance of a matter must be adjudged, and not the unchanging constant which is present in every petition against a state-authority, to arrive at a conclusion on whether to entertain a petition in the context of territorial jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. At para. 42 this Court observed: “42. It is the substance of the matter which the Court must consider in determining the connection with Delhi. An order being passed by an authority in Delhi is an unchanging constant. This static/uniform facet, which is unmoved by the nature of the lis, ought not to determine where territorial jurisdiction would lie.” 7. Further, at para. 17 it was also noted that the situs of the petitioner is not relevant to determine the territorial jurisdiction of a given Court. The said para. is extracted as under: “A Division Bench of this Court in Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association v. State of Haryana and Ors.,6 importantly, observed at para. 24-26 ―the residence or location of the petitioners is not relevant‖ to determine whether a Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a given petition.” 8. In the facts of the instant case, there may be a part of cause of action which has arisen in Delhi, however, the same should not be the sole reason to entertain the instant petition. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.,7 has held 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 6 2002 SCC OnLine Del 217 (DB). 7 (2004) 6 SCC 254. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:58:21 may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The material portion of the aforenoted decision reads as under: “Forum conveniens 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] .]” 10. In view of the above, petition stands dismissed. Liberty is, however, granted in favour of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court to agitate the instant lis, if so advised. 11. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 Nc This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:58:21