Can't Permit All Cases Against CBSE To Be Filed In Delhi When Most Vital Part Of Cause Of Action Arose Elsewhere: Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently dismissed an LPA seeking relief against CBSE, holding that though the Board has its HQs in Delhi, the appellant’s grievance was not directly attributable to it.

Speaking of forum conveniens, the Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, observed:

“…the doctrine of forum conveniens is invoked to determine the most appropriate forum for adjudication of a dispute and this exercise is undertaken not only for the convenience of the parties but also in the interest of justice”.

The appellant had relied on Clause 18.3.2 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws to urge that legal jurisdiction for claims against CBSE was at Delhi only. Rejecting the contention, the court said that the appellant’s strict interpretation of the clause defeated the doctrine of forum conveniens.

“…this Clause cannot be read in a matter that would permit all cases filed against the CBSE, regardless of the existence of a more appropriate forum, to be adjudicated in the Union Territory of Delhi; the existence of such a clause cannot exempt Courts from invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens especially in cases like the present where no direct actions of the CBSE have been impugned by the Appellant”.

It opined that the clause had to be interpreted purposively to include within its ambit only those cases where cause of action is attributable to CBSE.

Pithily put, the issue had arisen when the appellant, a student at respondent No.3/school residing in Uttar Pradesh, was debarred from attending due to non-payment of fee.

She had moved a writ petition, wherein interlocutory orders were passed by the court directing the school to conduct Grade VII-VIII examinations for her benefit.

These exams were conducted and the appellant cleared them. However, she filed the petition underlying the LPA seeking compensation from CBSE for being held back in Class VII for two academic years.

Relying on M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd v. Union of India & Ors, the Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of non-conveniens and noted that territorial jurisdiction was sought to be found in Delhi merely because CBSE was headquartered thereat.

Aggrieved, the appellant filed the LPA, contending that her grievance was w.r.t. CBSE not conducting Grade VIII examinations within an appropriate period. It was pressed that the cause of action arose in Delhi and the appropriate forum for adjudication was the Delhi High Court.

On this aspect, the Bench noted that the basis of the appellant’s claim for compensation was the delay in examinations for Grade VIII. Since responsibility of conducting the examinations lay with the school, it was said that the most vital part of the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, where the school was located.

In arriving at its conclusion, the court considered Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban Development Corp, where under similar circumstances, it was observed that mere presence of respondent’s registered office in Delhi would be irrelevant in determining territorial jurisdiction as it amounts to a miniscule part of the cause of action.

Holding that it was not the most appropriate forum for adjudication of the matter, the court dismissed the LPA.

Appellant appeared in person

Ms. Seema Dolo, Advocate appeared for CBSE

Case Title: Riddhima Singh through her father Shailendra Kumar Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education through its Chairman & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1108

Click Here To Read/Download Order