S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

Facts

1. The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment of a Single Judge dismissing his writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. An order dated 12.08.2016 dismissing the subsequent review petition, too has been impugned.

2. The appellant entered into a dealership agreement dated 06.03.1992 with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (“IOCL”), whereby the Appellant was appointed “dealer” for the sale and supply of certain petroleum products. IOCL is represented through its officers, the second to fourth respondents. The retail outlet allotted to the petitioner, located in Ghaziabad was owned by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (“GDA”) and had been leased to IOCL. The lease expired in 2008. Subsequent efforts by IOCL to renew the lease were unsuccessful. The Petitioner was therefore served with an eviction notice relating to the dealership on 24.09.2012. He alleges to have continued to maintain the outlet and provide security for it after it was closed down by orders of the GDA in November 2012. He resigned from the dealership agreement with IOCL vide letter dated 25.09.2013, stating therein that he felt compelled to resign as he was unable to bear maintenance and security costs of a closed outlet. In accordance with the resignation letter, the IOCL terminated the dealership agreement by termination letter dated 17.12.2013.

3. The Appellant thereafter, through representations made to IOCL sought revival of his erstwhile dealership or re-sitement, in accordance with the guidelines on “Reconstitution, re-sitement and Revival of retail outlets” issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, through letter dated 17.11.2005. As his representations were of no avail, he approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. IOCL contended that this court ought not to exercise jurisdiction and instead, dismiss the writ petition, allowing the appellant to approach the concerned High Court since the cause of action and the outlet fell outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The single judge, by the impugned order therefore, dismissed the writ petition.

Contentions of the Parties

4. The appellant argues that the single judge erred in law in rejecting the writ petition. It is contended that the dealership agreement dated 06.03.1992, entered into between the appellant and IOCL, provided for the jurisdiction of the courts at New Delhi, to entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any claim or dispute arising under the agreement. It is urged that this court has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter and if recourse had been made to the Allahabad High Court, the petition would have been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Swastik Gases P. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation (2013) 9 SCC 32, to contend that exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred by agreement onto the Courts at Delhi.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant, urges that the principle of dominus litis be applied, placing reliance on the decisions in Indian Institute of Technology v. P.C Jain and Ors., 45 (1991) DLT 42, and Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 2 SCC 671. He further contends that it is only in very rare cases that the court overlooks dominus litis of the petitioner and rejects the petition on grounds of inappropriateness of jurisdiction, such as, when jurisdiction has been invoked with malafide intent. He argues that such a situation warranting rejection of dominus litis does not exist in the present matter. Additionally, relying on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254, it is argued that the High Court will have jurisdiction in the matter even if a fraction of the cause of action accrued within the territory of the High Court, and in the present case a large part of the cause of action arose in Delhi owing to the dealership agreement having been entered int