$~97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4660/2026 NATIONWIDE SHIPPING SERVICES LIMITED (THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanampreet Singh, Adv. versus OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. (THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND CEO) & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, Adv. for R-4. Mr. Vijay Joshi, CGSC with Ms. Rakshita Goyal, GP and Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Adv. for R-5. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 08.04.2026 CM APPL. 22717/2026 (EXEMPTION) 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 4660/2026 and CM APPL. 22718/2026 3. The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to furnish and supply to the Petitioner copy of the report dated October 28, 2025, of Respondent No. 2, which was forwarded to the CVC and Respondent No. 3; b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to place on record all the 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 09/04/2026 at 13:13:09 steps taken by them basis the CVC's direction to take "necessary action", as per the online case status; c) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondents to disclose before this Hon'ble Court the complete records, files, noting(s) and documents pertaining to the vigilance enquiry (including but not limited to the report dated October 28, 2025), by the then Central Vigilance Officer of Respondent No. I, conducted pursuant to the Complaints filed by the Petitioner; d) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondents that upon furnishing and disclosure of the aforesaid reports, records, files, noting(s) and documents to the Petitioner, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall, within a time-bound period, take all necessary and consequential action(s) in accordance with law and Tender documents, and place the same on record before this Hon'ble Court; e) Pass any such other or further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 4. It appears that the petitioner earlier had filed as a writ petition before the Bombay High Court bearing W.P.(C) 25315/2025 seeking, inter alia, a direction that it be declared as L1 Bidder qua respondent no. 1‟s tender dated 08.05.2025, for hiring a Service Provider for Operation of Supply base at Pipavav Port, Gujarat (hereinafter “said Tender”). The petition was disposed of vide order dated 02.09.2025 with liberty to file afresh. The said order reads as under: “It appears that no formal application for carrying out amendments in the writ petition was moved on 18th August 2025 when leave was granted for amendment to the petitioners. 2. Mr. Setalvad, the learned senior advocate appearing for respondent no.1 has raised certain objections to several prayers which were not in the original petition. 3. Mr.Vyas, the learned senior advocate appearing for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition with proper prayers supported by the documents therein. 4. Writ Petition (L) No.25315 of 2025 is disposed of with aforesaid liberty 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 09/04/2026 at 13:13:09 to the petitioners. It is also indicated that withdrawal of this writ petition with permission of the Court shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioner in any other proceeding taken out by the petitioner or against the petitioner in future.” 5. Subsequently, it appears, that the petitioner yet again knocked the doors of the Bombay High Court through another writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 27431/2025, challenging, inter alia, the opinion of the Independent External Monitor (hereinafter “IEM”). The said writ petition seems to have been disposed of vide order dated 01.10.2025, as being withdrawn by the petitioner, on the grounds that the Central Vigilance Commission („CVC‟), as per its memorandum, cannot delve into matters which are pending before a Court of law. The said order is extracted as under: “1. Mr. Sheelang Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Clause 3.4.3 under Chapter-III of Vigilance Manual (Updated 2021) and submits that in view thereof, the petitioner company seeks permission to withdraw this Writ Petition.` 2. Mr. Kevic Setalvad, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. l and Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 have opposed this prayer for conditional withdrawal of this Writ Petition. 3. Considering the prayer made by the petitioner-company seeking withdrawal of this Writ Petition on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he shall not be challenging the issues which have been raised in this Writ Petition, Writ Petition (Lodging) No.27431 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Pending interim application, if any, also stands disposed of.” 6. A bare perusal of the order, prima facie, seems to indicate that liberty was not reserved in favour of the petitioner to re-agitate issues concerning the opinion of the IEM. 7. The petitioner, in para. 46, of the instant writ petition has pleaded its grounds to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, which is extracted as under: “That this Hon'ble Court has the necessary territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present Petition because the registered office of 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 09/04/2026 at 13:13:09 Respondent No.1 is based in New Delhi. Further, the office of the CVC is also based in Delhi. Moreover, the office of Respondent No.2 and 3 is also based in New Delhi. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition. Further, the Respondents are instrumentalities of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.” 8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jayant K. Mehta has also submitted that the primary reason for the petitioner to move this Court is because the respondent no. 1, before the Bombay High Court, challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the said High Court on grounds, inter alia, that there exists a clause in the Integrity Pact executed between the bidder and respondent no. 1, which confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Courts in New Delhi. 9. 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- authority, does not determine whether the Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition. 10. 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-pan- 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 09/04/2026 at 13:13:09 India 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 Court.” 11. On the issue of a petitioner approaching this Court on the sole-ground of the respondent-authority, an arm of the union government, being situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, it was observed at para. 37-38: “37. Naturally, being the capital of the Country, various authorities and bodies having pan-India jurisdiction would be located within the jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because the decision making authority happens to be in Delhi, ought not to be the sole reason to entertain a lis in this Court. The decision, no doubt, may be passed in the national capital, but it is usually against persons situated outside Delhi; and even more importantly, for actions which took place beyond the borders of this Court. The act of giving a hearing in Delhi, or the passing of an order in Delhi, is merely a result of a body/authority being situated in the national capital, it has nothing to do with the lis, the offending action, the legal injury or the foundational facts on the basis of which action is being taken. 38. The case-law cited above, makes repeated reference to “dominant facts”, and facts which are “material, essential and integral” to the lis in question. In most cases, the fact that the order is passed, or the head office is located, or that opportunity of hearing was afforded, within the jurisdiction of this Court is completely immaterial, non-essential, and non- integral to the dispute in question. Any of the aforenoted three aspects could very well have taken place in another part of the Country, it is for the sole reason that Delhi is the national capital, that, in most cases these factors get connected to the jurisdiction of this Court. From another lens, it may be seen that regardless of what the underlying facts or legal injury/infringement may be, the order impugned would, in an overwhelming number of cases be passed from Delhi. If this be the case, can this constant factum, which shall remain present in each case, be considered a “dominant fact” or a “material, essential and integral” fact? The answer must be in the negative.” 12. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the substance of a matter must be adjudged, and not the unchanging constant which is present in every petition 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 09/04/2026 at 13:13:09 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.” 13. In the facts of the instant case, it appears that the genesis of the instant lis, lies in the said Tender floated by respondent no. 1 i.e., the Mumbai Branch/Region of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Further, the documents which were submitted by respondent no. 4, was before respondent no. 1, in connection with the said Tender. The complaints before the CVC are qua the acts of commission/omission of the respondents at Mumbai. The additional information concerning the purported violations/infractions of respondent no. 4 was also received through an RTI reply received from the Mumbai Port Trust. 14. Any occurrence which already has, or will in the future, take place in Delhi, are merely ancillary and incidental episodes, which relate back to the fundamental and basic cause that arose in Mumbai. Merely on the ground that the office of the CVC is situated in Delhi, this Court ought not to entertain the present lis and split the dispute which the petitioner has qua the respondents‟ acts concerning the said Tender. 15. Even more importantly, the petitioner had, on two earlier occasions, moved the Bombay High Court to agitate its disputes concerning the said tender. The present petition, owing to this conscious and explicit choice made by the petitioner, can be dismissed, as entertaining such a petition 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 09/04/2026 at 13:13:09 borders on forum-shopping. 16. Insofar as the submission of Mr. Mehta that the respondent no. 1 has contested the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court on grounds that there exists a clause in the Integrity Pact executed between the bidder and respondent no. 1, which confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Courts in New Delhi, it may only be observed that the stand of the respondent no. 1 ought to govern the conduct of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the terms of an agreement/pact entered into between parties ought not to determine the jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court. This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) observed that a “Constitutional Court cannot be moulded to suit the fancies of parties expressed in their contract.” Useful reference may also be made to para. 21-23 of the said decision: “21. It may also be noted that parties cannot, through the means of a private agreement, require a writ Court to exercise jurisdiction in a case where it would not otherwise entertain a given petition. The Constitutional Court cannot be moulded to suit the fancies of parties expressed in their contract. In this connection this Court in Durgapur Freight Terminal Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India,13 has held: “29. The petitioners' reliance on Clause 26.4.1 of the License Agreement to attract jurisdiction of this Court is also fundamentally flawed. Jurisdiction clauses in the contracts would decide the jurisdiction within which contractual disputes are resolved. Party autonomy is the reason for such choice being provided to contracting parties to chose a forum of their mutual choice in contractual disputes. However, when a party chooses to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction of a constitutional Court, the jurisdiction clause in the contract cannot be a guiding factor. Regardless, even in contracts, one cannot confer jurisdiction by way of jurisdiction clauses on a Court that does not have one. One can only confine jurisdiction to one of the two competent Courts that have jurisdiction. As already held, this Court lacks jurisdiction to start with, therefore, even under Clause 26.4.1 of the license agreement, this Court does not attract jurisdiction in the matter. The whole argument advanced by the petitioners on 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 09/04/2026 at 13:13:09 “seat v. venue” is misplaced. There is no need to refer to Clause 26.4.1 of the License Agreement dated 19.09.2012 to look for signs to find if this Writ Court will have jurisdiction.” 22. A converse situation emerged in Mahrashtra Chess Association v. Union of India & Ors., 14 where the By Laws of the second respondent therein i.e., the All India Chess Federation provided as under: “21. Legal Course (i) The Federation shall sue and or be sued only in the name of the Hon. Secretary of the Federation. (ii) Any Suits/Legal actions against the Federation shall be instituted only in the Courts at Chennai, where the Registered Office of All India Chess Federation is situated or at the place where the Secretariat of the All India Chess Federation is functioning” 23. The Bombay High Court in light of the aforenoted Clause 21 declined to its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming its jurisdiction had been ousted. The Supreme Court negativing this finding, in strong words, declared: “25. In the present case, the Bombay High Court has relied solely on Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws to hold that its own writ jurisdiction is ousted. The Bombay High Court has failed to examine the case holistically and make a considered determination as to whether or not it should, in its discretion, exercise its powers under Article 226. The scrutiny to be applied to every writ petition under Article 226 by the High Court is a crucial safeguard of the rule of law under the Constitution in the relevant territorial jurisdiction. It is not open to a High Court to abdicate this responsibility merely due to the existence of a privately negotiated document ousting its jurisdiction.” [Emphasis Supplied]” 17. In the instant case, the Court finds that the material integral and essential part of cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court. At its highest, the petitioner‟s submissions, may allow the conclusion that a part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi, however, the same should not be the sole reason to entertain the instant petition. 18. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. 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 09/04/2026 at 13:13:09 Union of India and Anr.,6 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 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] .]” 19. If the petitioner has any grievance with respect to any of the respondents, and if it is permissible in law to raise the same, it can be agitated before the jurisdictional High Court. It also be noted, that the Court has consciously not delved into the issue of whether the petitioner can, in law, be entitled to raise any dispute concerning the said Tender, given that the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 27431/2025 was disposed of by the Bombay High Court without reserving any explicit liberty in favour of the petitioner. 20. Accordingly, leaving all rights and contentions open, the instant 6 (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 09/04/2026 at 13:13:09 petition along with pending application stands dismissed. 21. Dasti. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 8, 2026/Sh/Rao 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 09/04/2026 at 13:13:09