Rahul Chaudhary vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—The petitioner, Mr. Rahul Chaudhary is son of Smt. Pushpa Chaudhary.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 and Others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and Another, 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 present writ petition has arisen in Delhi. The writ petition is accordingly not entertained for lack of territorial jurisdiction.