( 1 ) THIS matter was heard on a number of days on the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain, try and determine the points involved in this writ petition.

( 2 ) SINCE the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by the writ petitioner on the ground that the entire cause of action or at least a part of it has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, a few facts relevant to the said question may be noted, keeping in mind the principle that the question of territorial jurisdiction is to be decided on the facts pleaded in the writ petition.

( 3 ) THE writ petitioner No. 1 is the holding company incorporated under the Companies act and the petitioner No. 2 is another company. Petitioner No. l holds about 50. 1% share capital of the petitioner No. 2 and the balance 49. 9% of the share of the petitioner no. 2 is held by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner No. 2 is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture and sale of automobile seat belts and systems.

( 4 ) ON or about 16th September 1991, a joint venture agreement in writing was made between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 3. The said agreement was for manufacture of automotive safety system and other automotive products, components and assemblies. Approval to that agreement was granted by the Government of India and pursuant thereto the petitioner No. 2 was incorporated on 16-1-1992.

( 5 ) THE petitioner No. l came to know in january 2001 that respondent No. 3, the joint venture partner of the petitioner No. 1, applied to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Central Government authorities, for approval to set up a 100% subsidiary in Delhi to manufacture steering wheels and airbags and the petitioner also came to know that such approvals were accorded by the Central Government on 11-5-2000 and 8-11-2000.

( 6 ) THE petitioner No. l, therefore, sent a letter dated 24-1-2001 to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and prayed for cancellation of such approvals on various grounds. After that the petitioner came to know that respondent No. 4 has been incorporated in india as a 100% subsidiary of the respondent No. 3 for setting up a unit for manufacturing steering wheels and airbags and a request was made to the Central Government to endorse its approvals in favour of the respondent No. 4.

( 7 ) THE petitioners state that without giving them a hearing, by a letter dated 9-7-2001 received by the petitioner No. 1 on 14-7-2001, the petitioner No. l was informed that its request contained in the letter dated 24-1-2001, had been rejected.

( 8 ) THE territorial jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked as the representation of the petitioner No. 1 was, as claimed by the learned Counsel of the petitioner, sent from calcutta, the registered office of the petitioner No. l. the representation was made by the petitioner No. 1 and not by the petitioner No. 2. In so far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned admittedly its head office and factory is at Bangalore, branch office is at nehru Place, New Delhi, and the registered office is at Taratolla, Calcutta.

( 9 ) IN so far as the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, some averments have been made in para 31 of the writ petition. Those averments are to the following effect :"the purported communication dated july 9, 2001 was received by the petitioners at 14, Taratolla Road, Calcutta - 700 088, within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court and, as such, part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this honble Court. Further, part of the records of this case are lying within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court. In such circumstances, this Honble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the instant application. "

( 10 ) FROM a reading of the averments in the aforesaid paragraph, two things emerge: (A) The communication dated 9-7-2001 was received by the petitioner at 14, taratolla Road, Calcutta - 700 088 within the territorial jurisdictio