Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. The question therefore to be considered is as to whether the disputes raised by the petitioners in the instant case relate to any claim or dispute arising under the agreement and as to whether the dispute relates to performance by the dealer of the terms of the agreement.

23. In Phool Service Station v. Indian Oil Corporation 2003 (4) AD(Delhi) 6 the agreement between the parties restricting jurisdiction was contained the aforenoticed clause 68. The petitioner, Phool Service Station, was located in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in taking a sample, a challenge was laid by it relating to the sampling procedure which was adopted by the Indian Oil Company. The writ petition was filed at Delhi against a show cause notice issued by the respondents to the petitioner. Page 134 Inasmuch as the matter was at the show cause notice stage, apart from holding that no cause of action had arisen in favor of the petitioner as yet, the court further held that the grievance with regard to the sampling was outside the scope of the agreement and the reliance placed on the jurisdiction cause was misconceived.

The Bench therefore held as under :-

10. In all the present case, first of all, no cause of action as such has arisen inasmuch as a final decision is yet to be taken by the respondent in response to the reply filed by the petitioner on 26.07.2003. Where the cause of action itself has not arisen, the question of territorial jurisdiction obviously cannot arise. However, assuming that any cause of action has accrued in favor of the petitioner, such a cause of action is not one which could be said to have arisen under the said Dealership Agreement. This being the case, clause 68 of the said Dealership Agreement would not come into play at all. The grievance with regard to the sampling procedures and non-compliance with the mother sample are all outside the domain of the contract between the petitioner and the respondent and has entirely arisen in U.P. No part of it has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

Do the issue raised in the present petition fall within he expression claim or dispute arising under this agreement appearing in Clause 68 of the said agreement The test for determining the question is whether recourse to the said agreement is necessary for the purpose of deterring these issues Recourse to the agreement is not necessary for considering the incident of the inspection. Recourse to the agreement is not necessary while taking up the issue of drawing of samples and the correct procedure therefore. Recourse to the agreement is also not necessary for deciding the question as to whether the show cause notice dated 16.8.2003 is valid and legal. Clause 68 of the said agreement is not at all attracted. Consequently, the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of A.T. Surekha (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present petition.

Page 136 From these averments and submissions, it is clear that the petitioner's grievance is essentially with respect to the inspection of 5.7.2003, the show- cause notice dated 16.8.2003 and the sampling and testing procedure adopted by the respondent. These are the facts which constitute the cause of action. They have entirely arisen in U.P., beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, this Court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.