@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D.R. Khanna, J.@mdashA preliminary objection has been taken that this petition under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act is not maintainable in the Delhi Court.
2. The background of the facts is that the petitioner company submitted a tender as architects/consultants for designing and engineering of the respondent''s non-plant buildings at. That Project, District Colaba (Maharashtra). This was in response to a tender floated by the respondent. It is common case that the petitioner''s tender was accepted and the letter of acceptance was despatched to petitioner''s address in. Delhi from Bombay by the respondent which has its office at that place.
3. There is next no dispute that so far as the submission of the tender and its acceptance, the Bombay Court atone can have territorial jurisdiction. The tender was received by the respondent at that place and the acceptance thereto also took place there. No part of the cause of action to this extent arose in Delhi.
4. The contract however could not be completed by the petitioner as according to it the respondent effected a number of changes in the site. The petitioner therefore sought higher rates which the respondent was not agreeable to pay. The respondent therefore by a letter dated 8th Feb., 1980 intimated the petitioner that the contract was terminated. This was addressed to petitioner''s address in Delhi and received there.
5. The petitioner therefore claims that since the termination of the contract was communicated to it at Delhi, part of the cause of action should be treated to have taken place at this place. The Delhi Courts in the circumstance, it is urged, are competent to entertain the petition under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of the disputes inter se parties to arbitration under the arbitration-clause contained in the contract.
6. There is no gainsaying that revocation, or termination of a contract constitutes as part of cause of action, and the place where the same takes place can vest jurisdiction in the Court existing there.
7. The operative part of the letter dated 8th Feb., 1980 was as follows:
With reference to your letter No. C-137/65 dated 31st Dec., 1979 and as mentioned in our telegram dated 2-2-1980 we regret to inform you that your fresh offer for consultancy at 1.7% is not acceptable to us. In such circumstances, we have no other alternative but to terminate our work order dated 11-7-1979, as you have mentioned that the rates thereof cannot remain in force after 4th December, 1979.
2. You are now requested to kindly send us all the final detailed drawings of the Workshop already completed by you and approved by us. For the settlement of the contract and the payment thereof, you are requested to please visit us at the earliest, but not later than 23-2-1980.
8. This letter makes reference to a communication from the petitioner to the respondent that after 4th Dec., 1979, the rates agreed upon could remain in force. In other words the petitioner declined to work on those rates thereafter. This communication or copy thereof has not been produced on record, but the parties have not disputed that this in fact was conveyed by the petitioner to the respondent. The question arises whether this refusal to work at the rates agreed upon in the contract from 4th Dec., 1979 onward and seeking enhancement could be treated as repudiation of the contract and its termination. If that was so the repudiation and termination was conveyed to the respondent at Bombay, and on this a score also the Court there alone can have jurisdiction.
9. In my considered opinion although ostensibly the letter dated 8th Feb., 1980 tended to formally communicate the termination of the contract by the respondent to the petitioner at Delhi, in reality that termination and repudiation took place when the petitioner had unmitigatingly conveyed to the respondent at Bombay that the agreed rates could not remain in force after 4th Dec., 1979. They thereby declined to carry out the remaining contract unless-rates were revised. So far as the existing rates were concerned, there was thus a clear repudiation. That having taken place at Bombay with the receipt of communication from petitioner, the Bombay Court alone can have jurisdiction on this basis. The letter dated 8th Feb., 1980 was simply a re-affirmation by the respondent on its part of that repudiation which the petitioner itself set into -motion earlier.
10. As regards the performance of the contract, there is no controversy that it was to be at Thal, District Colaba.
11. I therefore holding that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act, direct its return to the petitioner for presentation to the proper Court. Looking at the circumstances no order as to costs.
