( 1 ) M/s Korba Super Thermal Power Project, Bilaspur is the appellant. The respondent is M/s Radha Madhav Engineering Enterprises, Hyderabad. The appellant preferred TO this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th December, 1994 in Suit No. 2227-A/86 holding that the Delhi High Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the Arbitration Act for making the award a rule of the Court.

( 2 ) THE following are the facts:

( 3 ) A contract was awarded by the appellant to the respondent for the Mill Project Handling System at Korba (M. P. ). The notice inviting tenders was floated from the appellant s office at Korba and in response to that the respondent submitted its tender dated 30th July,1980. The same was accepted by the appellant at Korba. The acceptance was conveyed through telegram dated 14th October, 1980 followed by a letter dated 20/24th November, 1980. The formal deed of contract was executed and signed by the parties on 27th April, 1981. Certain claims were raised by the respondent/contractor by letter dated 31st September,1984. As per the terms of the contract dated 27th April,1981, claims were-REFERRED TO to the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication by letter dated 20th February, 1985. The claims and counter claims were filed by the parties and the award was made by the Arbitrator on 16th September, 1986 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 8,45,250. 00 to the respondent/firm and costs of Rs. 10,000. 00 were also awarded to the respondent. The counter claim of the appellant was rejected. The Award was filed by the Arbitrator on 18th November,1986 in the Delhi High Court on the original side with an application under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act.

( 4 ) AFTER receiving notice for filing the award the appellant filed objections. Reply thereto was filed by the respondent on 28th October, 1987. Three issues were framed. Among them the first one was whether the Courts at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This issue was treated as a preliminary issue. The learned Single Judge on 8th December. 1994 held that Delhi High Court had jurisdiction. Against that order this appeal has been preferred TO by the Korba Super Thermal Project.

( 5 ) IT appears that the tenders were floated and the contract was executed between the parties at Korba. Payments in respect of the works were made at Korba and all other related works were done at Korba. No cause of action ever accrued at Delhi. However, as a matter of convenience, the Arbitrator held the sittings at Delhi. The Korba Super Thermal Project,is a project of the National Thermal Power Corporationt (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the NTPC) and the NTPC is having its registered/principal office at Delhi. However, no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi according to the appellant. NTPC has its subordinate office at Korba for the purposes of carrying on the activities of Korba Super Thermal Power Project.

( 6 ) THE appellant strongly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court made in Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay vs. Prasad Trading Company (1991 (4) SCC 270) bearing Civil Appeal No. 3050/91 wherein the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in 1976. It was argued that if the NTPC had its sole office alone in Delhi and no subordinate/branch offices at all, then the suit could be filed at Delhi. But where it had a principal office at Delhi and also a subordinate office at Korba and the entire cause of action arose at Korba, the Arbitrators could not have filed the award at Delhi.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent wanted to rely on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Shri Ram Rattan Bhartia vs. Food Corpora- tion of India and another AIR 1978 Delhi 183 (FB); Mrs. Gupta Sanitary Stores vs. Union of India and another AIR 1985 Delhi 122 (FB) ; Sh. Kuldeep Singh vs. Union of India and others AIR 1986,del. 5