Delhi High Court - Orders
Vedanta Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14738/2025, CM APPL. 60479/2025, CM APPL.
60480/2025 and CM APPL. 77491/2025
VEDANTA LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv.; Mr.
Anish Kapur, Adv.; Ms. Nikhita K.
Suri, Adv.; Ms. Suman Yadav, Adv.;
Mr. Gurudas Khurana, Adv.; Mr.
Raghav Dutt, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Mr. Shreyansh
Rathi, Adv, Ms. Shrinkhla Tiwari,
Advs. for R-2.
Mr. Ajoy Roy, Ms. Avlokita Rajvi,
Mr. Lakshya Khanna, Mr. Bakhshind
Singh, Advs. for R-3.
Mr. Chetan Sharma ASG, Sr. Adv
Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv Mr. Amit
Gupta Adv Mr. R V PrabhatAdv Mr.
Shubham Sharma Adv Mr. Kumar
Kartikeya,Adv Mr. Chanakya
Kene,Adv Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Adv
Mr. Yash Wardhan Sharma, Adv Mr.
Naman Advs for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 27.02.2026
1. Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner 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 02/03/2026 at 20:44:01 to satisfy the Court as to how the writ petition should be maintainable before the Court in view of the fact that the material, integral, and essential part of cause of action seems to have arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The block in question situates within the State of Gujarat.
2. The Court upon considering various pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, in Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.,1 more specifically, in paragraphs 36 to 38 has held as under:
"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-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.
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 1 2026:DHC:1605 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 02/03/2026 at 20:44:01 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."
3. List on 21.04.2026.
4. Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.
5. Delay, if any, in filing the counter affidavit by respondent no.2 stands condoned. The same is taken on record.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 27, 2026/P/AMG 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 02/03/2026 at 20:44:01