Online Tender Access Doesn't Confer Territorial Jurisdiction If Cause of Action Lies Elsewhere: Calcutta High Court - 2025-09-15

Calcutta High Court Dismisses Plea Against IOCL Tender on Grounds of Territorial Jurisdiction

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court, in a recent judgment, dismissed a writ petition filed by Rubber Regenerating & Processing Co. against Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), ruling that it lacked the territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. Justice Jishnu Chowdhury held that the mere online accessibility of a tender document does not grant a court jurisdiction if the core cause of action arises in a different state.

Case Background

The petitioner, Rubber Regenerating & Processing Co., challenged a bid document issued by IOCL on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal for its Panipat Refinery in Haryana. The primary grievance was that the tender was restricted to a single, pre-named bidder, which the petitioner alleged was an "eyewash" and an unfair decision-making process.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Stance: The counsel for the petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable before the Calcutta High Court. They contended that since the tender was accessible online, the petitioner's right to participate was infringed upon within the court's jurisdiction, thereby establishing a cause of action in West Bengal.

Respondent's Stance (IOCL): Representing IOCL, the learned advocate raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. The counsel cited a precedent from the Madras High Court in M/s. Swan Enterprises Private Limited –Vs- Indian Oil Corporation & Anr. , where a similar petition concerning a tender for the same Panipat refinery was rejected on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. They argued that the entire subject matter of the tender—the contract, the required materials, and the location of the refinery—was situated in Panipat, Haryana, well outside the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.

Court's Reasoning and Precedent

After hearing both parties, Justice Chowdhury observed that the "integral part of the cause of action" was the tender document itself, which was explicitly for the IOCL refinery at Panipat. The court found no evidence that similar restrictive tender clauses had been applied to any IOCL operations within its jurisdiction.

The judgment heavily relied on the principle that the location where the alleged right is infringed must be substantially connected to the core issue. The court delivered a pivotal observation on this matter:

"The integral part of the cause of action, that is, the tender document which has been floated is for the IOCL refinery at Panipat which falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Only because the tender has been floated online and the right of the petitioner to participate in the tender process is allegedly infringed within the jurisdiction of this Court will, in my humble opinion, will not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the writ petition."

The court aligned its reasoning with the decision of the Madras High Court, which had previously dismissed a similar case on the same jurisdictional grounds.

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that the petitioner had no cause of action to maintain the petition in Calcutta, the court dismissed the writ. However, it clarified that the dismissal does not prevent the petitioner from approaching the appropriate legal forum with jurisdiction over the matter. The court also noted that since the petition was dismissed on a preliminary jurisdictional point, the allegations made by the petitioner against IOCL were not considered on merits and are not deemed to be admitted by the respondents.