Satish Ahuja v. Union of India & Ors.

“7. The preliminary objection of Mr. Kalra is that the petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned order passed by the IOCL at Chandigarh, whereby the petitioners’ dealership has been terminated on 22.2.2010 and for restoration of the said dealership. The injunctive relief sought is also in respect of the immovable property situated in Jalandhar, Punjab. It is argued that the retail outlet in question is situated in Jalandhar. The inspection was carried out in Jalandhar; show cause notice was issued by SDRSM, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Jalandhar, and; the termination letter has been passed by the General Manager of IOCL not in Delhi. Mr. Kalra submits that the parties cannot confer jurisdiction by agreement upon a court which otherwise lacks jurisdiction. In this regard, he placed reliance on Union of India and Others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and Another, AIR 2002 SC 126. He also placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Jai Ganesh Petroleum (Writ Petition (C) No. 5133/2005), Khutar Filling Station (Writ Petition (C) No. 5167/2005) and M/s Annapurna Filling Station (Writ Petition (C) No. 16946/2004), decided by a common judgment dated 23.12.2005. He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Hilal Filling Station Vs. Indian Oil

Corporation Limited, 109 (2004) DLT 410 and Phool Service Station Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2003 (71) DRJ 17. Mr. Kalra further submits that the petitioner earlier preferred a civil suit before the Court at Jalandhar claiming substantially the same relief.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Lekhi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate authority under the MGD 2005 is situated at Mumbai. However, the mere location of the appellate authority at Mumbai is not enough to vest jurisdiction in the courts at Mumbai. In this regard, he also placed reliance on Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2011 (181) DLT 658. Mr. Lekhi submits that even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a Court, the same would confer territorial jurisdiction on that Court. In this regard, he placed reliance on Alchemist Ltd. and Another Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 335. He also placed reliance on Mosaraf Hossain Khan Vs. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 658. It is argued by the petitioner that the place of inspection and the place from where show cause notice is issued- is irrelevant to decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction in the present case. The petitioners have sought to distinguish the judgments relied upon by the respondents. It is argued that the judgment in Phool Service Station (supra) is not relevant, as the grievance in that case was with regard to the method of inspection – which is not the issue raised in the present case. Hilal Filling Station (supra) is sought to be distinguished on the ground that in this case as well, the dispute was with regard to the drawing and attesting of samples which is not the case in hand. Similarly, in Arun Service Station Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 109 (2004) DLT 400, the challenge was to the procedure adopted in drawing and attesting of samples and the cause of action being linked to the situs of retail outlet and not to the agreement, the court within whose jurisdiction the testing had been carried out were held as having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. On the same basis, the petitioner seeks to distinguish Adani Exports (supra) by contending that in that case none of the facts were connected to the relief sought and mere presence of registered office of the petitioner company within the jurisdiction of the court was held not to give it territorial jurisdiction. The decision in Jai Ganesh Petroleum (supra) and Khutar Filling Station (supra) is distinguished by contending that in those cases, the dealership agreements were not executed in Delhi, but at Agra and the petitioners in those cases sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on the premise that the principal office of the respondent corporation is situated in Delhi and that clause 68 of the dealership agreement confers jurisdiction on Delhi courts alone. However, in the present case, the agreement was executed at Delhi and accordingly the disputes have to be adjudicated at Delhi alone. Reliance is placed on Rattan Singh Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Gill Power Generation Company Pvt. Ltd., 136(2007) DLT 629; and on A.K.Surekha Vs. The Pradeshiya Investment Corpn. of UP Ltd. & Anr., 105(2003) DLT 440 (DB), to contend that the act of making and signing of the contract forms part of the cause of action. It is argued that to determine the territorial jurisdiction of the court, one has to go by the averments made in the petition which are not only material but are an integral part of the cause of action.

9. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and the various decisions relied upon by them, I am inclined to accept the preliminary objection of the respondent and to dismiss the petition on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Various decision relied upon by the respondents in Phool Service Station (supra), Hilal Filling Station (supra), Arun Service Station (supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. (supra) have all been considered in Jai Ganesh Petroleum (supra) which, in my view, is a detailed and considered decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court with which I respectfully agree.” xxx xxx xxx

“9. Appellant’s submission that the decision in Vishnu Security Services and Jan Chetna (supra) are contrary and do not accept the ratio propounded in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. (supra), is illfounded and cannot be accepted. We do not find any conflict between the said judgments and the ratio in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. (supra). Even if there is any conflict, the law laid down by a larger Bench is binding on us, as it is for any Bench of

lesser or co-equal strength. The Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2005) 2 SCC 673 has held that the law laid down in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength.

10. In fact, the two decisions in Vishnu Security Services and Jan Chetna (supra) elucidate when and in what circumstances judicial discretion should not be exercised on the ground of forum conveniens. In Vishnu Security Services (supra), the Division Bench observed that though the writ petition may be maintainable in two High Courts, but when the High Court finds that it is inconvenient to entertain the writ petition as other High Court is better equipped to deal with the case, doctrine of forum conveniens would be attracted. Thereafter, reference was made to English authorities wherein it has been held that in judging the comparative convenience or non-convenience of the forum, the test to be applied is which Court out of the two is more suitable in the interest of the parties as well as ends of justice. Reference was also made to a U.S. decision wherein it has been observed that courts have open doors to those who seek justice, but when justice is blended with some harassment, it needs to be checked. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is dominus litis, but when the choice is motivated by temptation/ strategy to force the petition at an inconvenient place, the Court has the power to step in. We are also in agreement with the view of learned Single Judge in the impugned order that the Division Bench in Vishnu Security Services (supra) overruled the judgment of learned Single Judge only on the ground that no reason had been given by the learned Single Judge in that case to come to the conclusion that this Court was not the convenient forum. Similarly, in Jan Chetna (supra), the Division Bench observed that though the issue raised was purely legal relating to an object in another State, yet as the issue raised had no local flavour at all, the said doctrine need not be invoked. Consequently, in our opinion the judgments of Vishnu Security Services (supra) and Jan Chetna (supra) have neither deviated nor could have deviated from the judgment of five Judges of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. (supra).