Supreme Court moves Delhi suit to Madras, calls idea of a better-suited High Court misguided
Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan transfer CS(COMM) 625/2026 from the Delhi High Court to the Madras High Court, noting the parties trade from neighbouring States and warning against forum shopping.
One party trades from Chennai, the other from a town in Karnataka. Yet the plaintiffs sued in the Delhi High Court. On 28 October 2026 the Supreme Court said it could not understand why, and moved the suit to the Madras High Court.
The bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan went further than convenience. It said that any belief that one High Court is better suited to a particular kind of dispute is wrong, and that territorial jurisdiction cannot become cover for forum shopping.
A Delhi suit between two southern businesses
The petitioners are Sai Maghalakshmi Traders and others. They are the defendants in CS(COMM) 625/2026, a suit pending before the Delhi High Court at New Delhi, titled M/s Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods and Another v. Sai Maghalakshmi Traders and Others.
They came to the Supreme Court with a transfer petition. They asked that the suit, together with all pending applications in it, be moved from the Delhi High Court to the Madras High Court for trial and disposal in accordance with law (para 1).
Mr. Lakshman Raja T appeared for the petitioners and Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha for the respondents. The bench recorded that it heard counsel on both sides. The order does not summarise their arguments or say what the suit is about.
Chennai on one side, Nelmangala on the other
The bench began with where the parties are. The petitioners, who are the defendants, carry on business at Chennai. The respondents, who are the plaintiffs, have their principal place of business at Nelmangala in Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka (para 3).
Those are neighbouring States, the bench observed. It added that the Madras High Court also has original jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Against that background it recorded: “We fail to understand” why the plaintiffs filed in Delhi (para 4).
Forum shopping and High Court rank
The bench said convenience was not the only reason for transfer. Several High Courts may have jurisdiction over a case, it accepted, particularly in intellectual property disputes. The order itself does not say whether this suit is one.
But a perception that a particular High Court is better suited to a type of dispute, the bench said, is wrong. The mere existence of territorial jurisdiction in more than one court cannot justify forum shopping (para 5).
“entirely misguided and erroneous” (para 5)
Nor can that jurisdiction, the bench added, perpetuate notions of a hierarchy among the High Courts of the country.
Ordinarily, it said, where the parties, the genesis of the dispute and its factual locus are in one place, the courts of that place are best suited to understand the nuances of the case.
Why the bench allowed the transfer
The bench held that the petitioners had made out a case for transfer. It also found that the interests of justice would be served by moving the suit.
It gave two reasons. The parties carry on business in the neighbouring States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. And a transfer would help the expediency of disposal, bearing in mind all practical aspects, so the petition was liable to be allowed (para 6).
Order
The Supreme Court allowed the Transfer Petition and transferred CS(COMM) 625/2026 from the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi to the High Court of Judicature at Madras (para 7).
The respondents are at liberty to appear before the transferee court in person or through video conferencing (para 8). Pending applications before the Supreme Court stood disposed of. The order is dated 28 October 2026 and is signed by both judges.