MOHAMMAD SALIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, inter alia, quashing the order dated 09.04.2003 passed by the respondent no.2 (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd) whereby the petitioner's dealership was terminated invoking clause 58 (m) of the Dealership Agreement/Petrol/HSD Pump dealership Agreement with immediate effect. At the outset, the learned counsel Mr Kalra submitted that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. He submitted that the retail outlet of the petitioner was at Sarendhi district, Agra (UP). The letter of termination was also issued by the respondent no.3 from Lucknow to the petitioner at Sarendhi. The entire cause of action with regard to the termination of the retail outlet, according to Mr Kalra, has occurred in Agra. The inspection which resulted in the drawal of samples was also carried out at the petitioner's retail outlet at Agra itself. Accordingly, he submitted that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present writ petition.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr Maitri, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition and in particular he submitted that the Dealership Agreement which was entered into between the petitioner and the respondents (Indian Oil Corporation) on 18.09.1989 was made in Delhi. Clause 68 thereof reads as under:-

(3.) Based upon this clause, Mr Maitri submits that the case would be entirely covered by the decision of A.K. Surekha & Ors v. The Pradeshiya Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd: 2003 (69) DRJ 98, where a Division Bench of this Court, while construing a similar clause pertaining to jurisdiction, held that the Courts to which jurisdiction has been restricted would be the Courts having jurisdiction in the matter. In this regard, the petitioner in particular relied upon paragraph 28 of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench. I had occasion to deal with a similar question in the case of Mahesh Chand Gupta v. Assistant Collector, Sadar Bazar, Delhi & Anr being CW1730/2003 wherein, after noticing the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of . and ABC Laminart Pvt Ltd & Anr v. A.P. Agencies, Salem: AIR 1989 SC 1239, I held as under: