A High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition against a corporation merely because its head office is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, unless the relief sought is to be given by the head office or the decision was taken by an authority sitting in the head office.

ORDER :- This writ petition has been taken out questioning the validity of a decision of the Nagaon Paper Mill (in Assam) of the first respondent (a Government of India Enterprise), dated June 21, 2005, levying liquidated damages according to terms of contract, and directing recovery of Rs. 112.68 lakhs by way of adjustment from the credit account of a Rahul Enterprise, a proprietorship firm of the first petitioner and an associate of the second petitioner. Counsel for the respondents have taken the point that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it.

2. For the purpose of invoking jurisdiction of this Court statements have been made in paras 45 and 46 of the writ petition, and they are : 45. "That the Office of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (sic 4) are located within the aforesaid jurisdiction of this Honble Court. The respondent Nos. 6 and (sic 5 to) 7 are the employees of the respondent No. 1. The contract in question in respect of both the petitioners, were executed on behalf of the petitioners at 40 Strand Road, Kolkata-700001, within the aforesaid jurisdiction of this Honble Court. Moreover all the communications of the respondents including the impugned notice dated 21-6-2005 were addressed to and received by the petitioners by post, at their said office at 40, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001. Therefore the part of cause of action has arisen within the aforesaid jurisdiction of this Honble Court." 46. "That the records of the case are located partly in the office of the respondent No. 1, at Kolkata within the aforesaid jurisdiction of this Honble Court and partly in the office of the respondent No. 6 and (sic 5 to) 7 Nawgaon Paper Mill Unit of the respondent No. 1, at Assam outside the aforesaid jurisdiction of this Honble Court." Since in course of hearing dispute arose regarding the facts connected with execution of the contract concerned, I gave opportunity to the respondents to file an opposition, it has been filed.

3. I find that though the petitioners have their place of business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the contract concerned was actually executed outside such jurisdiction. I further find that the contract contained a forum selection clause, and that the parties agreed to get all legal disputes, arising between them, settled by the Civil Court at Morigaon, Assam. Therefore, by referring to the place of execution of the contract, it cannot be said that a part of the cause of action in connection with the impugned decision has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

4. It has been argued that payments in connection with the contract were to be made by the respondents at the business place of the petitioners, and that since such place is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, in view of the decisions in Soniram Jeetmul v. R. D. Tata and Co. Ltd. reported at (1927) 54 Ind App 265 : (AIR 1927 PC 156), State of Punjab v. A. K. Daha reported at AIR 1964 Cal 418 and State of Orissa v. Goenka Investment and Mining Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported at (1983) 1 Cal HN 354 : (AIR 1983 Cal 438), explaining the proposition : the debtor must seek the creditor, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

5. Counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the contract, cl. 19, specifically provided that all payments were to be made through bank situated in the State of Assam. I think, he is correct in saying that when the mode of payment was specifically mentioned in the contract, there is no scope or reason to apply the proposition the debtor must seek the creditor. Here the parties agreed that all payments would be made by the respondents concerned through bank in Assam. Therefore, there is no scope now to say that the respondents were liable to pay the amount in question to the first petitioner at its business place which is within the territorical jurisdiction of this Court.

6. It has then been argued that the impugned decision dated June 21, 2005 was r