( 1 ) AFTER hearing arguments of the parties on July 6, 1999 we had announced our order in Court and had dismissed the appeal. We are now giving our reasons for dismissal of appeal.

( 2 ) THE short point involved in the Appeal is whether the Court within whose jurisdiction the principal/registered office of the company is situate, will have the jurisdiction to try the suit even if no part of the cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction and the cause of action has accrued at a place where the company has its subordinate office. The facts in short are :

THAT the respondent has its registered and head office in Delhi and the agreement was executed between it and the appellant for execution of certain works for Riband Super Thermal Power Station, Stage I Rihand, District Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties, the same were referred for arbitration to the arbitrator. The award of the arbitrator was filed in this Court and one of the objections raised by the respondent to the award was that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as the work site was at Rihand (U. P.); the work was allocated and executed at Rihand; the agreement was executed at Rihand; and breach, if any, of the said agreement was also committed at Rihand. It was, therefore, contended that as no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court will have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the award made and published by the arbitrator and filed in this Court.

( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge having held that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court so as to confer jurisdiction to the Courts at Delhi, objections of the-respondent on that score were upheld and the petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act was held not to be maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The only contention of the appellant is that since the principal/corporate office of the respondent is situate in New Delhi, this Court, in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, will have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act filed by the appellant.

( 5 ) IT is urged by Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, that in view of the explanation to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Courts where the principal office of the respondent is situate, shall have the jurisdiction to decide a suit against the said corporation. For the sake of convenience, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be reproduced as under:-

20. 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 the 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 cases 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.

EXPLANATION : A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. "

( 6 ) IN support, of his contention, Mr. Aggarwal has placed reliance upon the judgments reported as Hukam Singh Vs. M/s. Gammon (India) Limited, AIR 1971 SC 740, Ram Rattan Bhartia Vs. Food Corporation of India and