Rattan Singh And Sons vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 1256 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. This Court had the occasion to reflect upon the question of exercise of the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts in Indo Gulf Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Industries Development Corporation, 2003 (III) AD (D) 254 : 2003 104 DLT 529. The Opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in O.N.G.C. v. Utpal Kumar Basi, , Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharlal Parshottamadas and Co., and ABC Laminart v. A.P. Agencies, had been applied. The view of the Division Bench in Sector Twenty One owners Welfare Association v. Air Force Naval Housing Board, (DB) had also been considered. No doubt these were in the context of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but that would make no appreciable difference. A reading of these decisions, however, will show that even in respect of writ petitions the place where the cause of action arises in the principal and most prominent and relevant manner would detemine which High Court should exercise territorial jurisdiction. This question has been considered in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd., . In its opinion, "each and every fact pleaded in the application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned".

2. Reverting to the factual matrix of the case in hand, it will be relevant to note that the events which have led firstly to placing the Petitioner in the `Holiday List' and thereafter to its removal from the list of approved Vendors/Contractors for a period of three years, occurred in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Work Order was issued from Lucknow. It is not relevant, therefore, that the Petitioner could have been awarded Work in other States of the country, including Delhi. It would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

3. The writ petition is rejected on this ground, without prejudice to the Petitioner's right to agitate these very grievances before any other Court possessing territorial jurisdiction.