Territorial jurisdiction in arbitration petition upheld where pleaded facts showed substantial cause of action links with Delhi.

Territorial jurisdiction for a Section 9 arbitration petition was assessed by applying the principle that jurisdiction lies where the cause of action wholly or in part arises under Section 20(c) CPC and Article 226(2) of the Constitution. Cause of action was treated as the bundle of material facts, not evidence, and the pleaded facts showed connecting links with Delhi, including alleged execution of agreements there, purchase of stamp paper in Delhi, receipt of the award letter and invocation letters in Delhi, nomination of Delhi banks, receipt of payments in Delhi, and execution of bank guarantees from Delhi. The objection that the contracts were executed at Noida raised a factual issue and could not defeat jurisdiction at the preliminary stage. The petition was held maintainable in the Delhi High Court, subject to evidence on execution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the basis of the pleaded facts constituting a part of the cause of action.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction was examined by reference to the principle that, under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, jurisdiction arises where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Cause of action was treated as the bundle of material facts necessary to support the claim, not merely evidence. The pleaded facts showed multiple connecting factors with Delhi, including execution of the main and supplementary agreements at Delhi as asserted by the petitioner, purchase of stamp paper at Delhi, receipt of the award letter at Delhi, nomination of Delhi banks for payment, receipt of payments at Delhi, execution of bank guarantees from Delhi, and receipt of invocation letters at Delhi. The objection that the contracts were executed at Noida required evidence and could not, at the preliminary stage, negate jurisdiction. The doctrine of forum conveniens was noted, but no case for refusing jurisdiction on that ground was made out at this stage.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected and the petition was held maintainable in the Delhi High Court, subject to evidence on the place of execution of the contracts.

---