Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.)An application has been filed for vacating the orders of stay dated 6.9.95 and 12.9.95 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
(2.)Mrs. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the applicant/respondent No. 4 in support of the application has principally raised two questions. Learned counsel firstly submits that having regard to the facts of the case it would appear that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Learned counsel points out from the tender notice which is contained in Annexure 'E' to the application for vacating that tender was issued from New Delhi. Clauses 3 and 6 of the said tender which read as follows:
"3. Eligibility of tenderers: Tenders are invited only from firms who are actually engaged in the manufacture of Calcium Propionate and who can undertake the supply within a reasonable period of receipt of supply orders (see Clause 9). Tenders submitted by commission agents/traders/ intermediaries or those having no manufacturing capacity of their own for supply of the same will not be considered. Tender form obtained from the company on payment will only be considered.

6. Last date of receipt of tenders : The tenders will be received by the Company upto 1400 hrs. on 24.5.95. The tenders will be opened at 1500 hrs. on the same date at the address mentioned above, in the presence of those tenderers who are present on the spot. Tenders received after 1400 hrs. on 24.5.95 shall be ignored. The Company shall not entertain any complaints for late receipt of tenders due to any reason."

(3.)It would also show that the said tender would have to be submitted at New Delhi. Learned counsel further points out that there exists an arbitration clause as contained in clause 22, from a perusal whereof it appears that all arbitration and court cases relating to disputes arising out of the contract, the territorial jurisdiction would be at New Delhi or Delhi. Learned counsel, therefore, relying on or on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711 , the decisions of this Court in the case of S.S. Jain & Co. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1994 (1) CHN 445 and in the case of In re : Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, reported in 99 CWN 307 , submits that this court should not entertain the writ application at all. Learned counsel further submits that if this court has no jurisdiction, the interim order passed by this court is a nullity and reliance in this connection has been made in the case of Board of Trustees, Calcutta Port Vs. Bombay Flour Mills Private Ltd. & Anr., reported in 1994 (3) AIR SCW 4855 . It is further submitted that even in this case the records of the case are lying at Delhi, and in that view of the matter, this court cannot issue any Writ of Certiorari. It is further submitted that in any event, the petitioners having opted for submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the court at Delhi, are estopped and precluded from contending that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ application. Reliance in this connection has been placed in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 .
;