UNITED BUILDERS Vs. INDIAN OIL COPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the preliminary objection by the counsel for respondent No.2, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to demonstrate how this Court has got territorial jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that this writ petition challenges the award of building contract for residential flats comprising of 375 dwelling units in a project to be executed in Sector 62, Noida, U.P. It is also not in dispute that tenders were opened in Noida. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to justify the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and pleaded that respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 have their offices in Delhi. The counter affidavit states that the society is also having its registered office at Noida. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has clarified that the registered office of the society is only at Noida and the society is also registered with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Lucknow. Respondent No.1 is a party against whom no claim has been made. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner has impleaded the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as a party on the ground that it has jurisdiction in respect of the respondent No.2 society. However, he has not produced any policy of CVC showing its jurisdiction in respect of the private societies such as Respondent No.2 society. Even assuming such jurisdiction exists it can be raised in a writ petition in the appropriate High Court. In my view since the cause of action has primarily arisen in U.P. the appropriate Court in this matter will be the Allahabad High Court.

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court has held in 1996(36) DRJ (DB) Page 304, Sector Twenty-one Owners welfare Association v. Air Force Naval Housing Board as follows:-

(3.) The above judgment clearly applies to the facts of the present case as the real party against which relief is claimed is in NOIDA. U.P. and the tender was also floated and opened In NOIOA, U.P.