Raj Kishan and Co. vs Chairman and Managing Director, National Thermal Power Corporation

R.C. Lahoti, J.

(1) Ntpc is a public sector undertaking. It is a Corporation with its head office at Delhi and its General Manager Super-thermal Power Station situated at Shakti Nagar, Sonbhadra, U.P. The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent for the construction of General Civil works Stage Ii at Sonbhadra, U.P. Respondent No.2 is seized of the arbitration proceedings at Sonbhadra, U.P.

(2) Vide para 19 of the main petition, it is stated that because the principal place of business in the form of ahead office of the respondent is situated in New Delhi and the respondents are carrying on their business at New Delhi, Therefore, this Court has territory jurisdiction to try the present petition. Reliance is placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Rattan Bhartia Vs. Food Corporation of India and Others, wherein by reference to clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 Cpc, the view taken by the Full Bench is as under :-

"APART from a Court having jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings under the Act within whose jurisdiction the cause of action to sue arises, the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant or each of the defendants at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain will also have jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings under the Act in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 of Civil P.C.

(3) Clause (b) which enables determination of jurisdiction when the defendants are more than one residing or carrying on business or personally working for gain in different jurisdictions has Ho applicability to the case at hand as here the defendant is only one, namely the NTPC. However, it has a principal office and a subordinate office respectively at Delhi'' and at Sonbhadra U.P.

(4) In Kamal Pushp Enterprises Vs. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Gas Authority of India Limited and Others, , reliance has been placed on the law laid down by their Lordships .in M/s. Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. M/s. Prasad Trading Company, . Their Lordships have clearly said that in Section 20 the Explanation is in the nature of a clarification on the scope of clause (a). It is not the court within whose jurisdiction the principal office of the defendant is situated but the court within whose jurisdiction it has a subordinate office which alone shall have the jurisdiction in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office. So long as there is a subordinate office of the Corporation situated at a place where a cause of action arises, the relevant place for filing of the suit will be where the subordinate office is located and not where the principal place of business is.

(5) The law laid down by their Lordships in Patel Roadways ( supra) clinches the issues. The application is rejected. The order dated 30.11.1994 holding want of territorial jurisdiction in this court is maintained. However, instead of dismissing the petition it is directed that the petition shall be returned to the petitioner for presentation to a proper court.