The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location of the cause of action, and internal correspondence between zonal offices and the Railway Board is inconsequential for locating territorial jurisdiction of a Court in the matter.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. In the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed letter dated 09.12.2022 issued by respondent No.5 to respondent No.6 and sought directions to respondent Nos.1 to 5 not to interfere in their operation and management of a Private Freight Terminal at Banful Sarani, Sagarbhanga, Durgapur, West Bengal (hereinafter, `Durgapur PFT').

2. Petitioner No.1 is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing logistic services and petitioner No.2 is its director. Respondent No.1 is the Union of India represented through the Ministry of Railways. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are functionaries of the Railway Board, Delhi. Respondent No.5 is the Executive Director (RM) & CFTM/ER, Railway Board, Kolkata. Respondent No.6 is M/s Palogix Infrastructure Private Limited (hereinafter, `Palogix'), a private company engaged in the business of rendering logistic services as well as developing and operating Railways Private Freight Terminals.

3. The petitioners claim to have been managing and operating Durgapur PFT pursuant to a resolution plan approved by NCLT, Kolkata Bench, vide order dated 12.02.2018 passed in ICICI Bank v. Palogix Infrastructure Private Limited, C.P. (IB) No. 37/KB/2017. It is their grievance that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have taken a decision, communicated vide the impugned letter by respondent No.5, to keep all programmes of loading/unloading at Durgapur PFT in abeyance till disputed matters of Palogix are resolved.

4. Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned CGSC appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, took a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, parties were extensively heard on the issue of territorial jurisdiction. Suffice it to note, three different counsels entered appearance for Palogix, claiming to have the authorization/nomination to represent it during the proceedings; each one of them was heard without making an issue of their authorisation to represent Palogix.

5. Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Ms. Malvika Trivedi, learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners, argued in favour of this Court having territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and contended thus:

(I) This Court can entertain and decide the present writ petition, as:

(a) The impugned letter was issued at the behest of respondent Nos.1 to 4/Railway Board, which has its situs in Delhi, and the records of any decision taken or to be taken by the Railway Board would be in Delhi. With regard to jurisdiction based on situs, reference was made to the decision in Jayaswals Neco Limited v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) 2103/2007.

(b) Cause of action has arisen in Delhi, insofar as (i) the decision leading to the issuance of the impugned letter had been taken in Delhi, (ii) the impugned letter was marked for `further guidance' to the Railway Board, Delhi, and (iii) a letter dated 26.12.2022 in furtherance of the impugned letter was issued to respondent No.5 by Railway Board, Delhi. In connection with jurisdiction based on cause of action, reliance was placed on the decision in Alchemist Ltd. and Another v. State Bank of Sikkim and Others reported as (2007) 11 SCC 335.

(c) The License Agreement dated 19.09.2012 contains an arbitration clause, i.e., Clause 26.4.1, as per which venue of arbitration is at Delhi. In absence of contrary indicia, the venue of arbitration is to be treated as the seat. Courts in Delhi, by virtue of having jurisdiction over the seat, have jurisdiction over all disputes arising out of the License Agreement to the exclusion of all other Courts. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on the decisions in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPS Limited reported as (2020) 4 SCC 234, Brahmani River Pellets Limited v. Kamachi Industries Limited reported as (2020) 5 SCC 462 and Inox Renewables Ltd. v. Jayesh Electrica