Mere Apprehension of Business Loss In State Does Not Confer Writ Court Territorial Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a petitioner's mere apprehension of business loss in West Bengal is not enough to invoke the court's territorial jurisdiction in a writ petition.

A single-judge bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai, while dismissing a plea filed by a Kuwait company said that it is the infringement of a legal right that gives rise to a cause of action.

"The lis before this Court is only with regard to the violation of the petitioner's right to fair treatment and fair adjudication based on the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not with regard to the petitioner's apprehension of loss of business in West Bengal. In such a view of the matter, the petitioner's apprehension cannot form the basis of the writ petition in West Bengal", the bench said.

In the case at hand, the petitioner Equate Petrochemical Company K.S.C.C  is a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Kuwait. It challenged the Final Findings issued by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies under the Customs Tariff Act and the Anti-Dumping Rules. The findings recommended the imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of Mono Ethylene Glycol from, among other countries, Kuwait.

The petitioner alleged that the Designated Authority failed to disclose essential facts, methodologies and calculations used to arrive at a dumping margin of 40 to 50 percent, despite its own verified data showing a negative margin. 

The counsels for Equate argued that the writ petition is based on an apprehension of injury which could be caused to the petitioner upon a notification being published/issued by the Government of India accepting the recommendation based on the Final Findings rendered by the Designated Authority.

They submitted that the DGTR failed to disclose the essential facts, methodologies, and calculations used to determine "normal values" and "cost of production," which resulted in a "dumping margin" of 40% to 50% despite the company's data showing a negative margin

To justify filing in Kolkata, the petitioner claimed that its business would be "disincentivized" because major customers, such as IVL Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Private Limited, are located in Kolkata and import goods through the Haldia port.

Counsel for the Designated Authority and the Union of India submitted that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the writ petition. Referring to the petitioner's pleadings, they argued that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, as the impugned actions were taken by authorities located outside West Bengal

The court, after hearing both parties, rejected petitioner's arguments. 

The bench referred to the decision in Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors.,1994 4 SCC 711, where the Supreme Court held that in order to entertain a writ petition, the Court must be satisfied on the basis of the averments made in the petition that the cause of action therefor has either wholly or in part arisen within its territorial jurisdiction.

It noted that the complaint in the present case pertains to the infringement of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner's right to fair hearing, right to fair procedure, right against arbitrariness, etc. (i.e. the several facets of Article 14 of the Constitution of India). Therefore, the petitioner is only required to prove that they have been deprived of such a right.

However, the bench opined that in the case at hand, while the petitioner alleged potential harm to its business in West Bengal, this "adverse effect" was not an "integral part of the cause of action". The dispute relates to the violation of the petitioner's right to non-arbitrary and fair treatment by the Designated Authority, the adverse effect on the petitioner's business cannot be said to be an integral part of the cause of action.

Nothing would turn if the petitioner's assertion that it has business engagements with entities in West Bengal or that its business in West Bengal will be hampered is removed from the pleadings, since the challenge to the final findings is not premised on that at all, added the bench.

In view of the above, the Bench dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Equate Petrochemical Company K.S.C.C. v. Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGRT) & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 3

Case Number: WPA 26130 of 2025

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates J. P. Khaitan, Rishi Raju, Shreya Mundra, Sarthak Yadav, Rohan Aloor

Counsel for Respondents 1& 2: Advocates Asoke Kumar Chakraborty, Vipul Kundalia, Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Dibashis Basu, Arun Bandyopadhyay

Counsel for Respondent 3: Advocates Anirban Ray, V. V. V. Sastry, Anirudh Goyal, Utkarsh Srivastava, Shilpa Balani, Vishal Agarwal, T. Sinha

Click Here To Read/Download Order