Delhi High Court
Rahul Chaudhary vs Oil & Natural Gas Corporation on 8 December, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
04
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7692/2005
RAHUL CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate.
versus
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION .... Respondent
Through Mr. Rakesh Sawhney and Mr.
Munindra Dwivedi, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 08.12.2009
1. The petitioner, Mr. Rahul Chaudhary is son of Smt. Pushpa Chaudhary.
2. In 2000, Mr. Mahendra Chaudhary and Smt. Pushpa Chaudhary dissolved
their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent granted by the Family
Court, Mumbai. Smt. Pushpa Chaudhary expired on 13th January, 2004 in Mumbai.
She at that time was working with Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited in
Mumbai. Smt. Pushpa Chaudhary had nominated her brother Mr. Kailash N. Kodate.
3. On the basis of documents submitted by Mr. Kailash N. Kodate, brother of
late Smt. Pushpa Chaudhary, gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits were
paid by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. to Mr. Kailash N. Kodate from their
Mumbai office in Mumbai. Mr. Kailash N. Kodate is a resident of Mumbai.
4. The petitioner challenges the said action of the respondents. He also
challenged the nomination recorded by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. on
the ground that it should not have been accepted as it was contrary to the Rules of
nomination as a brother above the age of 15 years is not treated as a family
WPC No.7692/2005 Page 1
member. It is, however, admitted that the nomination was made by late Smt.
Pushpa Chaudhary and was accepted by the respondent No.1, Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. at Mumbai.
5. It is also noticed that the respondent No.2 on the basis of a Will has filed the
probate proceedings before the Civil Court at Mumbai. It is the case of the
respondent No.2 that after receiving payment, the said respondent has repaid the
bank loans of late Smt. Pushpa Chaudhary as well as loans obtained from third
parties. Even if there was no nomination, the respondent No. 2 states that he was
entitled to payments under the Will and receive payment from the Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation Ltd. at Mumbai.
6. The petitioner no doubt resides in Delhi, but this does not confer territorial
jurisdiction on this Court. The contention that if the petitioner succeeds, Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. shall make payment in Delhi and therefore, this Court
has territorial jurisdiction cannot be accepted. It is presumptuous and if this
contention is accepted in all case residence of the petitioner/plaintiff will confer
jurisdiction, unless there is an express exclusion of jurisdiction. The petitioner
challenges acceptance of the nomination form of late Smt. Pushpa Chaudhary in
Mumbai and payment of the dues on the basis of the said acceptance, again in
Mumbai. These acts, which are subject matter of challenge, were undertaken at
Mumbai and not in Delhi. In Union of India versus Adani Exports ltd AIR 2002 SC 126
it was observed that the facts pleaded 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. No cause of action for filing of the
WPC No.7692/2005 Page 2
present writ petition has arisen in Delhi. The writ petition is accordingly not
entertained for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
DECEMBER 08, 2009
NA/VKR/P
WPC No.7692/2005 Page 3
