OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION versus UTPAL KUMAR BASU AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 252 · Decided: 23-06-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION 
v. 
UTPAL KUMAR BASU AND ORS. 
JUNE 23, 1994 
B 
[M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, CT., A.M. AHMADI AND 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Constitution of Indict-Article 22fr-Territorial jurisdiction based on 
cause of action wholly or in part-Held, jurisdiction must be decided on facts 
C pleaded in the Petition, but facts must form integral part of course of action. 
Code of Civil procedure, 1908-Section 21-Held, cannot be invoked 
in favour of a party who deliberately invokes the jurisdiction of a court which 
has no jurisdiction whatsoever, for ulterior motives. 
D 
Practice and procedure-Exemplary costs-Awarded against party who 
did not act bona fide. 
Engineers India Limited (EIL) acting as Consultants for the Oil and 
Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) Issued an advertisement dated 27th 
E June, 1991, in all leading newspapers of the country including those in 
circulation in West Bengal calling for tenders for setting up of a Kerosene 
Recovery Processing Unit at the Hazira Complex in Gujarat. The tenders 
were to be communicated to the EIL at New Delhi. All the bids were 
scrutinised by EIL at New Delhi and the final decision was taken by the 
Steering Committee on Junuary 27, 1993 alNew Delhi, pursuant whereto 
F it was decided to award the contract to M/s. GMMCO Ltd. Thereupon, 
NICCO, an unsuccessful tenderer having its registered office at Calcutta, 
filed a Writ Petition in the Calcutta High Court. In support of its plea that 
a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the 
Calcutta High Court, NICCO averred that it had come to know of the 
G tender from the publication in the Times of India, which was 'issued and 
obtained• by it within the said jurisdiction, that it had submitted its tender 
from the registered office at Calcutta, that it had submitted its revised 
price bid from its registered office and that it had made various demands 
for justice from its registered office. 
H 
A Single Judge of the High Court entertained the Writ Petition and 
252 
O.N.G.C. v. U.K. BASU 
253 
disposed it of with a direction to consider the offer of NICCO and in the A 
event of it being found valid and lowest, that the same should be accepted. 
ONGC appealed to the Supreme Court by Special Leave. The Court 
confined itself to the preliminary objection of ONGC that the Calcutta 
High Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. 
Allowing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. On a plain reading of Article 226(1) and (2) it becomes 
clear that a High Court can exercise the power to issue directions, orders 
B 
or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by C 
Part III of the Constitution or.for auy other purpose if the cause of action 
wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it 
exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or 
authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order 
or writ is issued is not within its territories. [258-E-F] 
2. It is well settled that the expression 'cause of action" means that 
bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him 
D 
to a judgment in his favour by the Court. Therefore, in determining the 
objection oflack of territorial jurisdiction the Court must take all the facts 
pleaded in support of the case of action into consideration, albeit without E 
embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said 
facts. The question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to 
entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the avennent 
made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To 
put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided 
on the facts pleaded in the petition. [258-H & 259-C-D] 
F 
3. Merely because NICCO read the advertisement at Calcutta and 
submitted the offer from Calcutta and made representations from Calcut-
ta, these would not constitute facts forming an integral part of the cause 
of action. So also, the mere fact it sent Fax messages from Calcutta and G 
received a reply thereto at Calcutta would not constitute an integral part 
of the cause of action. Thus even if the averments in the Writ Petition are 
taken as true, it cannot be said that a part of the cause of action arose 
within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. [253-F-G] 
4. While the spirit of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure may H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.