JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this application under Section 9 of the Arbiration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for grant of interim protection to it against action of the respondent No. 3 whereby the respondent No. 3 has invoked the performance bank guarantee bearing No, CandI/BG/03-04/04 dated 11th April 2003 up to the value of Rs. 42,37,955 and bank guarantee No. CandI/BG/03-04/09 by way of mobilisation advance guarantee, vide invocation of letter dated 8 November 2005. Respondent No. 3 is the Executive Engineer (Irrigation Div.), Jhalavvar, Rajasthan. The Government of Rajasthan, Irrigation Department, had floated tenders for its works at Jhalawar, Rajasthan. These lenders were floated during the Additional Chief Engineer, Irrigation Zone, Kota, Rajasthan, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2. The petitioner was awarded work and while carrying out the works awarded, disputes have arisen between the parties which led respondent No. 3 to take the aforesaid action of invocation of bank guarantees.
2. I am of the opinion that the Court will not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. As mentioned above, the work is awarded by the Government of Rajasthan. The employer, namely, Additional Chief Engineer to whom the work was accorded is in Kota, Rajasthan, and the execution of the work was at Jhalawar, Rajasthan. Even the two bank guarantees which are invoked by respondent No. 3 were submitted by the petitioner through the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Panaji, Goa, and it is for this reason, the State Bank of India, Goa is arrayed as respondent No. 4. None of these respondents are accordingly, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
3. In para 10 of the petition, the petitioner has mentioned that cause of action had arisen at Delhi in the following manner:
That the Hon’ble Court is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction to entertain the present petition under Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Con-ciliation Act, 1996. The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition as the cause of action above described has arisen to the petitioner at Delhi, starting from the formation of contract agreement between the par-ties, the correspondence arising between the parties, in the course of performance of contract, having bearing on furnishing of bank guarantees and involving their invocation, as also for the reason that all the appointing Authorities, named in the clause, for constitution of Arbitral Tribunal are functional at Delhi above. The Hon’ble Court thus has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition.
4. The aforesaid averments made in para-10 are not corroborated by the documents filed. Bid documents which were issued along with the tender were by the Chief Engineer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. As mentioned above, bids were invited for rehabilitation of left and right main canal, including distribution system of Bhim Sagar Irrigation Proojecr, JhaJawar, Rajasthan. It was a civil work of huge magnitude to be executed at Jhalawar. After the award of the work, agreement dated 1 January 2003 was signed between the parties. This agreement is between Additional Chief Engineer, Irrigation Zone, Kota and the petitioner whose address is mentioned as 407, Shiv Tower, 4th Floor, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa. The non-judicial stamp papers on which the agreement is written are issued by Ra-jasthan Government. It can clearly be seen from the agreement that it was signed at Jhalawar. Further, as already mentioned above, even the bank guarantees were furnished from the State Bank of India, Panaji, Goa to the Executive Engineer (Irrigation Div.), Jhalawar, Rajasthan. Merely because the petitioner has administrative office in Delhi and some of the letters were sent by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the petitioner at its administrative office at Delhi would neither constitute any cause of action nor give territorial jurisdiction to the Court.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys v. Union of India and Anr. and submitted that even if part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi, the Court will have territorial jurisdiction. Following observations made in the said judgment were pressed into service (para 6 at page 51 of Comp LJ):
6. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove, constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted, inter alia, to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily.
6. There is no doubt about the legal proposition. However, in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that any part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. In fact, in the very case cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court held that Delhi High Court will not have territorial jurisdiction to maintain the writ petition where the appellant company was having its registered office at Mumbai, obtained loan from Bhopal Branch of the State Bank of India, the notice for repayment of the loan was issued from Bhopal under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The apex court referred to its earlier judgment in Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engg. Enterprises (P) Ltd. and extracted the following passage there from:
2. We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court of Calcutta should have exercised jurisdiction in a case where it had absolutely no jurisdiction. The contracts in question were executed at Aligarh, the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh, even the contracts provided that in the event of dispute, the Aligarh court alone will have jurisdiction. The arbitrator was from Aligarh and was to function there. Merely because the respondent was a Calcutta-based firm, the High Court of Calcutta seems to have exercised jurisdiction where it had none by adopting a queer line of reasoning. We are constrained to say that this is a case of abuse of jurisdiction and we feel that the respondent deliberately moved the Calcutta High Court ignoring the fact that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. It clearly shows that the litigation filed in the Calcutta High Court was thoroughly unsustainable.
The factual position in this case is almost identical.
7. This petition is, therefore, rejected for want of jurisdiction. It would, however, be open to the petitioner to seek remedy before the appropriate Court. IA are also dismissed.