M/S R.K. ROADLINE vs HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP. LTD & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~99 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4558/2026, CM APPL. 22224/2026 & CM APPL. 22225/2026 Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 IN THE MATTER OF: M/S R.K. ROADLINE .....Petitioner Through: Mr Rahul Shukla and Ms Bachita Baruah Shukla, Advs. versus HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORP. LTD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kamlendra Mishra CGSC with Mr. Krishna Pandey, Adv. and Mr. Shaurya Aditya Singh, GP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. The petition is for, inter alia, setting aside the order dated 30.03.2026, issued by respondent no. 1, whereby, the Letter of Acceptance dated 26.08.2025 awarded to the petitioner has been terminated. 2. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the contract was for ‘bulk transportation for Jammu and Kashmir-State’. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked on the ground that contract, impugned show-cause notice, and the impugned termination order have all been issued from Delhi and the seat of arbitration of disputes arising out of the contract being here. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signed Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 12:35:24 KUMAR KAURAV 3. In M/s R.P. Transporters v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Lts. And Ors.,1 this Court was faced with similar facts and dismissed the petition. 4. Even in the present case, the material, essential, and integral part of the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because the contract was entered into in Delhi and all the impugned communications were issued from here cannot be the determinative factor when the underlying work was for Jammu and Kashmir. 5. The Court in Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.2 in paragraphs 36 to 38 has