JUDGMENT:- The appellant is a contractor who entered into a construction contract with the M.E.S. (Military Engineering Services) for making some additional construction in the ordnance factory at Muradnagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The contract was entered into at Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh. A dispute arose in regard to the execution of the contract between the contractor and the respondent, Union of India. An Arbitrator was appointed who in due course rendered an award in favour of the contractor. The contractor instead of instituting an appropriate proceeding in Uttar Pradesh where the contract was executed and the work was carried out, instituted a proceeding on the original side of the Delhi High Court. By this proceeding the contractor prayed for making the award a rule of the Court under Ss. 14 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The respondent raised a plea to the effect that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction inasmuch as the cause of action had arisen at a place in Uttar Pradesh and that the contract was also executed at Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh. The learned single Judge negatived this plea. The respondent Union of India preferred a letters patent appeal to the Division Bench of Delhi High Court which allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge upon reaching the conclusion that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction. This view was taken having regard to the fact that in the opinion of the Division Bench of the High Court the Union of India was not carrying on any "business" in Delhi so as to attract S. 20*1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which inter alia provides that a suit may be instituted where the defendant "carries on business or works for gain", as contended by the appellant contractor. In forming this opinion the High Court placed reliance on its earlier decision in Binani Bros. Ltd. v. Union of India, ILR (1975) 2 Delhi 196.

*1. "20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of 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 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) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the view taken in Binani Bros. case is not correct. Having given our anxious consideration to the submission urged on behalf of the appellant, and having perused carefully the judgment in Binani Bros. case, we are of the view that the Delhi High Court was prefectly justified in reaching this conclusion. We do not propose to reiterate the same reasoning in our own words, more so as Delhi High Court has discussed the matter in an admirable manner and the reasoning which has appealed to the High Court is unexceptionable. Under the circumstance we can do no better than to quote from the judgment of the Delhi High Court the relevant passages :-

"The next question is whether the Union of India carried on business or worked for gain through the Director of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi to confer jurisdiction on the Courts at Delhi. The answer has to be in the negative. The expression "voluntarily resides" in S. 20 is significant. It necessarily refers to natural persons and not to legal entities. Likewise, the expressions "carries on business" or "personally works for gain" do not refer to functions carried on by the Union of India in di