ORDER
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge passed on 1.3.1999 in Suit No.691-A/1998 holding that Delhi Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit and directing for return of the plaint to the plaintiff for its presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction.
2. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the appellant/plaintiff seeking for payment of damages and compensation for illegal termination of services. It was stated in the suit that he was appointed by the defendant company to the post of Deputy Accounts Manager (Works) w.e.f. 16.1.1984. The defendant is a company incorporated under the Indian companies Act having its registered office at 1, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi when the aforesaid appointment letter was issued to the appellant on 1.2.1984. The services of the appellant/plaintiff were terminated by letter dated 31.7.1995 without assigning any reason and thus it was stated in the plaint that the appellant/plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs.4,90,921/- and claims towards damages the said amount. The respondent/defendant in its written statement took up the plea inter alia that no part of cause of action had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and therefore, Delhi courts would have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the aforesaid suit. It was stated that the plaintiff was appointed as Deputy Accounts Manager of the of the defendant company at Faridabad and he always worded at Faridabad. It was also pleaded by the defendant that the registered office of the defendant is at Pune and the letter of termination of the services of appellant was given to him at Faridabad. In view of the aforesaid pleadings the trial court framed a preliminary issue being issue No.2, which reads as follows:-
“Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD”
3. On the aforesaid issue the Additional district Judge heard the parties and on consideration of the provisions of section 20 of the code of civil procedure and taking notice of the facts and circumstances of the case held that Delhi courts have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the aforesaid suit and accordingly, held the aforesaid issue in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff and directed for return of the plaint to the plaintiff for its presentation before a court of competent jurisdic-tion.
4. Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the trial court acted illegally and without jurisdiction in holding that Delhi Civil
Courts shall have no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. He submitted that the letter of appointment to the appellant was issued from the registered office located at Delhi. He also referred to the letter of termination dated 31.7.1995, a copy of which was also placed on record, which is in the following terms:-
K.G.KHOSLA COMPRESSORS LIMITED Phones: 0129-275681 Telex: 0343-240 KGKW IN FAX: 0129-275351, 275329 Regd. Office: Works:1, Deshbandhu Gupta 18.8. Kms, DelhiRoad, New Delhi-110055 Mathura Road, INDIA Faridabad-121003 INDIA JULY 31, 1995. "As per clause 5 of your Appointment Letter No.PERS:FAC:BSV:84 dated February 1, 1984 your services are no longer required by the Management and terminated with immediate effect i.e. July 31, 1995. Enclosed please find herewith cheque No.816010 dated 31.7.1995 for Rs.32,625/- (Rupees thirty thousand six hundred and twenty five only) as three months salary in lieu of notice drawn on ANZ Grindlays Bank. 'H' Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Your dues, if any, will be cleared by the personnel Department after obtaining clearance certificate from the concerned Departments and you can collect your full and final settlement at any working day after 5th August, 1995." He also placed on record the Annual Report of the defendant company for the year 1998-99 and particularly referred to the
contents of the said report of the Directors and accounts for the year ending on 31.3.1999 wherein registered office of the respondent company is shown to be at Pune whereas its Corporate office is shown to be located at New Delhi, whereas the factory is located at Faridabad. The company is also shown to have branches at New Delhi amongst other places. Drawing my attention to the aforesaid documents placed on record, the learned counsel submitted that when the same are properly appreciated it would be proved and established that the Delhi Civil Court also has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Surinder Kumar Arora Vs. The Bengal National Textile Mills Ltd., Calcutta, reported in AIR 1978 P & H page 156.
5. In order to appropriately appreciate the contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties it would be necessary to give below the relevant portion of section 20 of the code of Civil Procedure:-
“20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause or action arises. – Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) or the cause of action wholly or in part, arises.
[Explanation]. – A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect or any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.
6. A plain reading of section 20 would show that whereas clauses (a) & (b) sought to confer jurisdiction only on such courts where the defendant or the defendants resided or carried on business etc. clauses (c) confers jurisdiction on such a court where cause of action either arises wholly or in part. However, an explanation is added to the aforesaid provision in terms of which if a suit against a corporation is brought on the ground of its carrying on business as envisaged by clauses (a) & (b) then only the explanation could be invoked and the suit would lie where the Corporation has its sole or the Principal office even if no cause of action arises there. This is what was held in M/s. Gopal Singh Hira Singh Merchants Vs. Punjab National Bank and others; . When the aforesaid explanation is properly noticed in the light of the substantive provisions of section 20 it is also apparent that if no part of the cause of action has accrued at the place of the branch office the mere fact of the Corporation having a branch office could not give the court of that place jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
7. It is needless to mention here that the word Corporation in the explanation includes not only statutory corporations but also companies registered under the Companies Act. This is a settled law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hakam Singh Vs. M/s. Gammon (India) Ltd.; . The aforesaid provisions, therefore, make it apparently clear that if it could be shown by the petitioner/plaintiff herein that any part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi or if the respondent/defendant company carried on business as envisaged by clauses (a) & (b) within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi the Civil Courts at Delhi shall have jurisdiction in this matter.
8. When the appointment letter was issued to the appellant/Plaintiff the registered office of the company was admittedly located in New Delhi. The aforesaid conclusion is apparent on the face of a bare reading of the letter of appointment dated 1.2.1984. The said letter was issued on the etter head of the respondent company indicating the registered office of the company at New Delhi. The order terminating the services of the appellant/plaintiff is dated 31.7.1995 and the contents thereof have been extracted above. A reading of the said letter would also indicate that the said letter was issued rom the registered office of the respondent company located at New Delhi. In that view of the matter part of the cause of action has definitely arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. Moreover, the order of termination emanated from the Registered office at Delhi. Thus where the cause of action for the suit arose for the plaintiff the registered office of the company was located at Delhi and therefore, in terms of explanation to section 20 PC Delhi Courts shall have jurisdiction to try this suit. Besides, after the registered office of the respondent company is transferred to Pune. It appears that the Corporate office of the respondent company is still located at New Delhi.
9. Considering all the aforesaid factors. I am of the considered opinion that the respondent not only carried on business within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi as envisaged under clauses (a) & (b) read with the explanation but in the present case a part of cause of action had also arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Civil Courts. The Additional District Judge, therefore, erred in law and facts in holding that Delhi Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.
The aforesaid order of the trial court is thus set aside. The suit is restored to its original number. The trial court shall now proceed with to
decide the other issues framed in the suit in accordance with law.
10. The parties shall appear before the trial court on _for obtaining further dates of trial.