ORDER Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. A contract for 'production of spalls of size 300 M.M. including drilling, blasting etc. at approved quarry site, Dam site at Pambla' had been executed between the parties at Ernakulam, Kerala. Disputes that had arisen between the parties were referred to the Sole Arbitration of Shri Alfred Daniel, who entered upon the Reference and thereafter published his Award dated 22.2.1996. Objections have been filed against the Award on behalf of Respondents. A Preliminary Objections, to the effect that the Courts at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction has been raised, in reply to which the Petitioner has submitted that 'by virtue of Section 20(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure the Respondents Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its principal office at New Delhi. It is further submitted that in respect of any cause of action arisen at any place where it has also subordinate office, The Respondent corporation can be deemed to carry on business at such place also.' In the Reply of the Claimant to the Objec-tions of the Respondent it has been stated as under :
"The fact that the Respondent Corporation has a subordinate office known as LPP Dam Unit, High Range Junction, Kothamangalam in Ernakulam District, Kerala can only confer concurrent jurisdiction to the competent Court in Ernakulam District, Kerala. This does not mean that the jurisdiction vested in the Courts at Delhi by virtue of the fact that the principal office of the Respondent Corporation is at New Delhi and by virtue of the provisions of Section 20(a) read with the Explanation thereto of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is in any way ousted."
2. The controversy as to which Court is competent to entertain proceedings in the nature of the one at hand has now been conclusively set at rest by the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Patel Roadways Limited Vs. M/s.
Prasad Trading Company, . It should be read as the Restatement of law on the subject. This judgment lays down that if a subordinate office of the respondent is located where the cause of action has arisen, the situs of that subordinate office would alone have jurisdiction rather than the registered or principal office, where no cause of action has arisen. This decision has been followed by separate Division Benches of this Court and, therefore, the matter is not res integra. This Court has already declined to entertain petition on the grounds of absence of terriorial jurisdiction in the case of Nellicka Cane Corporation Vs. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr. 1999 VI Ad (Delhi) 785.
3. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, learned counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that the ratio established in the M/s. Patel Roadways Case (supra) could not apply to the facts of the present case since the work contemplated in the Agreement was to be performed at Pambla, Idukki, Kerala, where the Respondent did not have its subordinate office. However, the Agreement which covered the contract between the parties was undoubtedly executed in Ernakulam, Kerala where the Respondent did have a subordinate office. The contention is that the cause of action had arisen in Pambla and not at Ernakulam. It is now firmly established that the cause of action can arise in several places, and can be discerned from the bundle of facts disclosed in the case. It is also well settled that the cause of action would undoubtedly arise where the contract between the parties had been executed. The springboard for the arbitration proceedings is contained in the Agree-
ment which was executed at Enrakulam, Kerala, where the Respondents have a subordinate office. The Arbitration Proceedings were also conducted in Kerala. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Courts in Kerala, either at Idukki or at Ernakulam or in Thiruvananthapuram would have jurisdiction. It is equally clear that since no part of cause of action had arisen in New Delhi, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. The Preliminary Objection is, therefore, sustained, and subject to payment of Rs. 3000/- as costs, the petitioner is granted sixty days time within which to present the petition in the court of competent jurisdiction.
4. The petition as well as all the pending I. As. are disposed of accord-
ingly.