FAO No. 203/2009 UNREPORTABLE 2,3,4,5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO 203/2009 Date of Decision: March 26, 2010 GE CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD ….Appellant Through Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Advocate Versus SHRI EHASAN AHMED A ………. Respondent Through None CORAM:. HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred against the order of Additional District Judge Ms. Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi whereby a petition filed before her by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been returned for want of territorial jurisdiction with a direction to the appellant to present the same in the court of competent jurisdiction. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment read as under :- “For any petition to be maintainable it has to be considered that the Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Section 20 of the CPC provides that the suit can be instituted where the respondent FAO No. 203/2009 resides or carries on business or personally works for grains or where any part of cause of action has arisen in whole or in part. In the present case, the respondent is shown to be the resident of Bangalore. From the vehicle number it is evident that the vehicle in question has also been purchased in Bangalore. Though the petitioner has claimed that the loan agreement dated 30.12.2006 had been signed at New Delhi but from the perusal of the document itself it is evident that under the signatures of the respondent, the place of execution of the agreement has been left blank. Further more, in the documents of hypothecation also leaves the place of the execution of the loan agreement conspicuously blank. Also the promissory note does not indicate the place where it has been executed. The statement of account has been placed on record which shows that all the post dated cheques which had been issued were local which implies that they had been issued in respect of bank account in Bangalore. From all the documents which have been filed on record by the petitioner it is evident that the agreement has not been signed at Delhi. The respondent does not reside in Delhi or work for gains at Delhi. The loan amount has been disbursed at Bangalore and all the installments were also paid from the local amount of Bangalore. Even if it is accepted that the final credit of the cheques was being done at the registered office of the petitioner at New Delhi, it does not show that any part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. It is no doubt true that in the loan agreement dated 30.12.2006, it has been mentioned that it is court at New Delhi which would have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the parties. But it is also settled law that their consent cannot confer jurisdiction on a court which otherwise lacks jurisdiction. Had it been that any part of cause of action had arisen in New Delhi, the parties could have limited their jurisdiction to Delhi to the exclusion at Bangalore. However, from the above discussion it is apparent that no part of cause of action arose in Delhi. The respondent does not reside in Delhi or work for gains or carries on business at Delhi. The vehicle is also not at Delhi. It is therefore held that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and the same is directed to be returned to be presented in the Court of competent jurisdiction. File be consigned to the record room. “ FAO No. 203/2009 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed on the record the original Loan Agreement dated December 30, 2006. It bears the signatures of the respondent, the creditor and the authorised signatory of the appellant. Beneath the signatures of the authorised signatory, the place and the date of execution are mentioned. As against the place of execution, it is written `New Delhi’ and against the date `December 30, 2006’. In view of this original Agreement, prima-facie it appears that the same was executed in Delhi and if that is so, it can well be argued that part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. For what has been noticed above, the case is remanded back to the trial court to examine the question of jurisdiction afresh after notice to the respondents and in case, it is found that the trial court does have the jurisdiction, it shall proceed further in the matter as per law. With this direction, the appeal is disposed of. The appellant shall appear before the trial court on April 27, 2010. The trial court record be sent back forthwith. REKHA SHARMA, J. MARCH 26, 2010 PC. ….