( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short "theact") filed by M/s. Thompson Press (India) Ltd. (hereinafter called the petitioner)against U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow (hereinafter called therespondent ).

( 2 ) THE case of petitioner is that in pursuance to the tenders invited by the respondentfor the printing and supply of blank Ticket Books , the petitioner s tender offer dated20. 10. 1994 (Annexure B-1 ) was accepted by the respondent vide their letter dated15. 12. 1994 (Annexure B) on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Anagreement (Copy at Annexure A) is also alleged to have been entered into on5. 4. 1995. In pursuance of this contract, the petitioner had supplied the requisitenumber of blank ticket books as and when ordered by the respondent. The petitionerhad submitted their bills for payment for the price thereof but the respondentunreasonably withheld and delayed the payments for a long time in spite of repeatedletters of demand and at last the respondent had admitted liability to pay only Rs. 14,10,898. 00 and after long delay paid only Rs. 13,78,447. 00 on 26. 5. 1997. Balanceamount, security amount of Rs. 3,52,000. 00 and interest 21% per annum is payable bythe respondent which they have refused to pay. Petitioner has also claimed damages. The petitioner had issued various letters and notice of demand but to no effect. . Thereis an arbitration agreement contained in clause 21 of the agreement for resolving thedisputes through arbitration. The petitioner has accordingly filed this petition undersection 20 of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator.

( 3 ) THE territorial jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked on various grounds asmentioned in para 30 of the petition. In reply, respondent has disputed the claim ofthe petitioner and it is alleged that the petitioner had committed breach of the termsof the contract. It is alleged that there are no disputes, differences or claims whichneeds adjudication by any Court or by the Arbitrator. Territorial jurisdiction of thiscourt is disputed on the ground that cause of action wholly arose at Lucknow and notat Delhi, where the respondent s head office is situated. Learned counsel for therespondent has strongly contested the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

( 4 ) THE following issue thus arises before proceeding further on merit:-

"whether this Court has got territorial jurisdiction?"

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that this Court has jurisdictionon the following grounds:-

1. Part of cause of action arose at Delhi inasmuch as the tender waspublished in Delhi;

2. The orders were placed in Delhi:

3. Some payments were made in Delhi;

4. Under condition of the sale mentioned in the bills, disputes were subjectto the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts:

( 5 ) THE respondent has an office in Delhi and doing business for gain. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the respondenthad invited quotations from Lucknow, the tender was accepted at Lucknow; paymentswere to be made at Lucknow, goods were to be supplied and actually delivered atlucknow and no cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen at Delhi. Delhioffice of the respondent was not concerned and had not contributed anything in thetransaction, as such this Court has got no territorical jurisdiction.

( 6 ) SECTION 2 (c) of the Act defines a Court as a civil Court having jurisdiction todecide the question forming the subject matter of the reference if the same had beenthe subject of a suit. In the case of claims arising out of contract, Section 20 of CPCenacts the rule as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Hence the teritorialjurisdiction in respect of a proceeding under the Act will be governed by Section 20cpc.

( 7 ) A Court gets jurisdiction under Section 20 Civil Procedure Code if-

1. The defendant resides or carries on business or personally works forgain within the local limits