( 1 ) ONE of the questions for consideration in these four appeals is about the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi to entertain the three petitions filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by M/s. DLF Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as dil ).

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that on 14. 1. 1998 three separate petitions i. e. O. M. P. Nos. 20/98, 21/98 and 22/98 were filed by DIL seeking injunction against the respondent Bank from encashing the bank guarantees. Inter alia, it was alleged that the petition was being filed against the fraudulent and illegal act of M/s. Atul Limited (hereinafter referred to as "atul") in seeking encashment of bank guarantees issued by the Banks. The contracts between DIL and ATUL were novated in favour of State Bank of India, who has not sought invocation of bank guarantee in view of novation of contracts.

( 3 ) IN terms of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, the original contract need not be performed. As the contracts were novated in favour of State Bank of India, who is substituted in place of ATUL, there is no privity of contract left between DIL and ATUL in whose favour bank guarantees were issued. ATUL as such cannot invoke bank guarantees.

( 4 ) THE petitions came up before learned Single Judge on 15. 1. 1998 at about 5. 00 p. m. Since there was no time left to hear the matters, it was agreed amongst learned counsel for the ATUL and DIL that encashment of the bank guarantees shall be subject to decision in the petitions. However, on 16. 1,1998 it was brought to the notice of learned Single Judge by learned counsel for. ATUL that the concerned banks had already issued cheque. Considering the facts and circumstances, the concerned banks were directed not to clear the cheques.

( 5 ) ATUL opposed the petitions. In addition of resisting the petitions on merits, a preliminary object was raised as regards Court s territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the petitions. It was alleged that as per the terms of the contract arrived at between DIL and ATUL only the Courts situate at Valsad, Gujarat have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. It was alleged that the entire cause of action had arisen in Valsad, Gujarat. Major negotiations and discussions between DIL and ATUL relating to the basic agreements for erection and commissioning of 1b MW TG. Set took place in Valsad. The agreements were signed by DIL and ATUL at Valsad. The agreements were to be performed entirely at Valsad. Work was to be carried out at Valsad. therefore, no cause of action had arisen out side Valsad. Even as per Memorandum of Understanding and the minutes of meeting dated 19. 2. 1997 conditions of the original contract remained unaltered and formed a part of new agreement between ATUL, State Bank of India and DIL. As such only Courts situate at Valsad, Gujarat have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.

( 6 ) LEARNED Single Judge in the impugned order, which is the subject matter in these four appears, one of which is filed by DIL arid the others by ATUL, turned down, the said preliminary objection. It was held that part of cause of action in all the three cases for four bank guarantees had arisen at Delhi; all the four bank guarantees were executed in Delhi; agreements arrived at between DIL and ATUL were not binding on the banks since the bank guarantees are independent contracts as in clause 15 of the agreements words like "alone" or "exclusive" were not there; therefore, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in ABC Laminart Private Limited and another v. A. P. Agencies, Salem AIR 1989 S. C. 1239, clause 15 of the agreement does not debar the institution of cases in Courts where a part of cause of action had arisen.

( 7 ) ADMITTED facts are that a letter of intent was issued by ATUL on 1. 2. 1995, which was accepted by DIL through its letter dated 2. 2 1995 for supply of 15 MW TG. Set (capable of generating 18 MW at 1. 8 PP/on turn key basi