(1.) Heard Sri N.L Srivastava, the learned counsel holding the brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Agarwal, the learned counsel holding the brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) The doctrine of "forum convenience" was examined by a Full Bench of five Judges of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2011 AIR(Del) 174 The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court held that, even though, a part of cause of action has arisen in the State, where the appellate authority is located, it does not become the "forum convenience" for a party to challenge that order in that particular State, inasmuch as, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to see the convenience of all the parties. The Full Bench held that the concept of "forum convenience" means that it is obligatory on the part of the Court to see the convenience of all the parties before it, which would include the existence of more appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are necessary for just adjudication of the controversy involved and its ancillary aspects. The balance of convenience is also to be taken into consideration. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots also touched on the aspect of forum convenience while opining that the cause or part of action would entitle the High Court to entertain the writ petition.
(3.) In similar situation, where the Debt Recovery Tribunal of Madhya Pradesh had passed an order and the Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad had dismissed the appeal, a writ petition was filed before this Court, wherein, the Court declined to entertain the petition and directed the parties to litigate before the appropriate forum in Madhya Pradesh. This judgement, namely, M/s. Dynamic Education Systems (International) Limited and another Vs. Bank of Baroda and others, 2012 8 ADJ 61 is fully applicable in the instant case.