D. R. KHANNA ( 1 ) THE only controversy which arises for determination in this petition moved under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act by the Indian Oil Corporation limited, is whether the Delhi Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, it had effected purchase of admiralty brass tubes used in petroleum refineries worth Rs. 25,31. 898. 42 from the respondent namely, Multimetals Limited for its Mathura Refinery Project. The purchase order was issued at Delhi. Subsequent change order was also issued from Delhi in August, 1977. The respondent was entitled to 100% payment against despatch of documents etc. to be presented personally at the petitioner s office at Janpath, New Delhi within two days of the despatch. The documents were accordingly so presented and payments also received by cheques drawn on petitioner s bankers at New Delhi. ( 3 ) THE respondent, it is next averred charged 28% excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,08,947. 39 ad valorem from the petitioner on the goods supplied, while actually no such excise duty was leviable. The respondent was, therefore, required to refund the same, but declined to do so. Since the contract contained an arbitration clause and it was also mentioned that the Court situate at New Delhi/ Mathura alone would have jurisdiction to hear and determine all actions and proceedings, the present petition was brought. ( 4 ) THE respondent on its part has contested the jurisdiction of this Court as according to it, the contract was completed at Kota in Rajasthan, and the payments or dues were invariably also received there. No cause of action, it is stated, arose at Delhi. Payments were further stated to have been received by demand drafts payable to the respondent at Kota, though in one case a cheque was also delivered wrongly at New Delhi by the petitioner. This was said to be against the practice followed by the parties as the payments were otherwise being received at Kota. As regards the purchase order, it has been stated that though it was issued from New Delhi, it was signed in token of acceptance by the respondent at Kota, and then forwarded to the petitioner. The execution of the change order at New Delhi had been controverted. As regards the purchase order, it has been stated that though it was issued from New Delhi, it was signed in token of acceptance by the respondent at Kota, and then forwarded to the petitioner. The execution of the change order at New Delhi had been controverted. ( 5 ) IN rejoinder, the petitioner reasserted the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court, and denied that payments were made at Kota. All bills and documents relating to the contract, it is stated, were presented by the respondent at Delhi and payments also received by cheques or drafts at Delhi. Those cheques were drawn on petitioner s bankers at New Delhi. The negotiations and discussions about the contract were also held between the parties at Delhi. Even the acceptance of the purchase order was received by the respondent at Delhi. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, following issue was framed: "1. Has the Delhi Court jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act?" ( 7 ) EACH side has filed one affidavit in which the respective cases set up by them have been supported. The affidavit on behalf of the petitioner is by one Shri K. V. Guruswamy, Senior Project Manager, and from the side of the respondent of Shri S. N. Agarwal, Financial Controller-cum-Secretary to the respondent. In the former, it is mentioned that settlement of terms of the contract took place in Delhi in February, 1977, and the respondents tender too was accepted in Delhi by the petitioner on 25-4- 1977, and the telex in that connection was received by the respondent at Delhi. ( 8 ) THE respondent s affidavit stated that it sent the acceptance of the purchase order from Kota and so also the amendment. It has, however, been admitted that at two times the payments were received by means of cheques drawn by the petitioner at its Janpath branch. They were collected by the respondent through its bankers at Kota. ( 9 ) OF the documents filed on record. the purchase order dated 2-6-1977 was issued from Delhi, and their despatching point and price basis mentioned were for Kota. Clause (21) relating to payment was to the following effect: "100% payment against despatch of documents (invoice. They were collected by the respondent through its bankers at Kota. ( 9 ) OF the documents filed on record. the purchase order dated 2-6-1977 was issued from Delhi, and their despatching point and price basis mentioned were for Kota. Clause (21) relating to payment was to the following effect: "100% payment against despatch of documents (invoice. Inspection s Release Note, Test Certificates certified by Lloyds, R/r etc.) to be presented personally to the Finance Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Refineries and Pipelines Division), Mathura Refinery Project, Indian Oil Bhawan Janpath, New Delhi-110001, within 2 days after despatch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The payment shall be released at the earliest but not later than 7 days from the date of presentation of documents. " ( 10 ) THE respondent also sent the acknowledgment copies of the purchase order in token of its acceptance to Engineers India Limited, Delhi, by a letter dated 19-7-1977. Two cheques of the amounts of Rupees 6,98,806. 50 and Rupees 3,52,405. 15 drawn on the petitioner s Delhi-bank were also received from the side of the respondent at Delhi. So were the bank drafts got issued by the petitioner received by the respondent at Delhi. Annexure c attached with the affidavit filed by the petitioner, further shows that meetings between the parties where terms of the contract were settled, took place at Delhi from 16-2-1977 to 18-2-1977. The minutes bear the signatures of both the parties. The telex of the purchase order was also received by the respondent at Delhi from the petitioner. The acknowledgment copies of the purchase order and the change order were despatched by the respondent to Engineers India Limited at Delhi. ( 11 ) WITH this background of the facts, it is apparent that the Delhi court has jurisdiction to try this petition. Respondent s tender for the supply of goods was received at Delhi and its acceptance also took place by the petitioner at Delhi. In fact the meetings in which the various terms of the contract were settled took place between the parties at Delhi and the minutes thereof were signed by both of them at Delhi. The telex of the purchase order which the petitioner later placed with the respondent was received on latter s behalf by its representative at Delhi. In fact the meetings in which the various terms of the contract were settled took place between the parties at Delhi and the minutes thereof were signed by both of them at Delhi. The telex of the purchase order which the petitioner later placed with the respondent was received on latter s behalf by its representative at Delhi. The bills for payments were presentable by the respondent at Delhi and they in fact were so presented. Some of the payments were received by cheques which were drawn on plaintiff s bank at Delhi. Simply because the respondent got them collected through its bank at Kota would not make that the place of payment. The collecting bank acted as mere agent for transmission of the money. It is the bank on which the cheques are drawn which determines the place of payment. See in this regard the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in K. E P. V. Venkatachalam Pillai v. Rajaballi M. Sajun, AIR 1935 Mad 663 . Similarly part of cause of action arises at a place where presentment for payment has to be made vide J. N. Sahni v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1954 Madh Bha 184 (FB ). ( 12 ) I therefore decide the issue in the affirmative. The arbitration agreement is directed to be filed in Court. ( 13 ) IN terms thereof the disputes inter se parties are referred to the arbitration of a person selected by the respondent out of a panel of three persons nominated in terms of the arbitration clause. This be done within three weeks. The petitioner will be entitled to the costs of this petition. Counsel fee Rupees 500. 00.