Delhi High Court
Videocon Industries Limited vs Gail (India) Limited & Anr. on 1 July, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. No. 310/2015
% 1st July, 2015
VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep S. Ladha, Advocate, Mr.
Yashvardhan, Advocate, Mr.
Davender Singh, Advocate and Mr.
Piyush Singh, Advocate.
versus
GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Relief prayed in this petition is for stay against invocation of the letter of credit in the sum of Rs.2.10 crores.
2. Between the parties there exists an agreement dated 30.12.2008 for supply of natural gas by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner. It is with respect to this agreement that disputes have arisen and which agreement contains an arbitration clause.
OMP No.310/2015 Page 1 of 4
3. In the petition, territorial jurisdiction of this Court is invoked in terms of the averments in para 36, and which para 36 reads as under:-
"36. That this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present petition in terms of Article 15.6 and 20.2 of the GSA dated 30.12.2008. It is submitted that Article 15.6 (Alternative 2)(a)(iii) provides that the venue of arbitration shall be New Delhi. Further, Article 20.2 categorically provides that the Courts at Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the enforcement of an award pursuant to Arbitration under Article 15.6 and in relation to any petition for interim relief, which reads as under:
"20.2 The Courts at Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the enforcement of an award pursuant to Arbitration under Article 15.6 and in relation to any petition for interim relief."
Further, the registered office of the GAIL is based at Delhi." "
4. It is settled law that parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction on a court which does not have any. It is only if the courts at New Delhi otherwise had jurisdiction then the clause of the courts at New Delhi to have exclusive jurisdiction, would be of any effect.
5. So far as a contractual matter is concerned, three aspects give courts jurisdiction vide A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239. The three aspects are (i) where the contract is executed, (ii) where the contract is to be performed and (iii) where the payment under the contract has to be made.
OMP No.310/2015 Page 2 of 4
6. The fourth ground for invocation of territorial jurisdiction can be on the ground that if the respondent is a company and cause of action has accrued qua the branch office of company in Delhi. Merely because a company has its head office or registered office at New Delhi will not confer jurisdiction unless cause of action also has accrued at the place where the corporate office is or any branch office is situated or the company has no branch office. This is the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported as M/s. Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. M/s. Prasad Trading Company (1991) 4 SCC 270. It is noted that in the present case the respondent no.1/Company has various branch offices including at Bharuch where the cause of action has arisen.
7. As per para 36 of the petition which has been reproduced above, it is not stated that the agreement dated 30.12.2008 was executed at Delhi. A perusal of this agreement dated 30.12.2008 nowhere shows that it is written therein that the same is executed at Delhi. Therefore so far as execution of contract is concerned, the same is not at Delhi and consequently qua the first aspect of contractual matters, this Court would have no territorial jurisdiction. Qua the second aspect of performance it is seen that the respondent no.1 has to contractually supply the gas, i.e perform the contract, at the plant of the petitioner situated at Bharuch, Gujarat i.e not at OMP No.310/2015 Page 3 of 4 Delhi. Thus even on the second aspect with respect to a contractual matter this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction. So far as the third aspect of payment is concerned, para 36 of the petition reproduced above does not make any averment that the petitioner used to make the payment to the respondent no.1 at Delhi. On a query to the counsel for the petitioner, it is conceded that payment is being made by the petitioner to the respondent no.1 at Bharuch in Gujarat. Therefore, even qua the third ingredient with respect to contractual matter of payment, this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction. As already stated above, merely because respondent no.1's corporate office/registered office/head office is situated at Delhi will not give territorial jurisdiction unless part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi.
8. In view of the above, it is clear that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter. Petition is accordingly dismissed on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to the petitioner to approach the court having territorial jurisdiction.
JULY 01, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
OMP No.310/2015 Page 4 of 4