MAHINDER NARAIN ( 1 ) IN this case, the issue involved is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain these proceedings. ( 2 ) I have heardthe learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) MR. Malhotra, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, relies upon the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a judgment , of the Supreme Court reported as (1991) 4 SCC 270 , a judgment delivered by a Bench of three judges. ( 4 ) BY the said judgment, the Supreme Court adjudicated upon two special leave petitions. The Supreme Court was concerned with me question as to whether the court in which action had been initiated. Had jurisdiction,to try it, when the defendant isued was a Corporation. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Explanation to that Section were construed. The Supreme. Court to bseryed - "the first part of the Explanation to Section 20 Procedure applies only to such a corporation which has its sole or principal office at a particular place. In that event the courts within whose jurisdiction the sole or principal office of the defendant is situate will also have jurisdiction inasmuch as even if the defendant may not be actually carrying on business at that place, it will be deemed to carry on business at the place because of the fiction created by the Explanation. The latter part of the Explanation takes care of a case where the defendant does not have a sole office but has a principal office at one place and has also a subordinate office at another place. The words "at such place" occurring at the end of the Explanation and the word "or" referred to above which is disjunctive clearly suggest that if the case falls within the latter part of the Explanation it is not the court within whose jurisdiction the principal office of the defendant is situate but the court within whose jurisdiction it has a subordinate office which alone shall have jurisdiction "in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office". ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations, Mr. Malhotra states that the defendant Corporation has its principal office of business at Lucknow. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations, Mr. Malhotra states that the defendant Corporation has its principal office of business at Lucknow. It has its subordinate office at Noida and New Delhi and inasmuch as communication regarding the taking over of the establishment has been addressed to the plaintiffs office at Delhi, the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and the Courts at Delhi will have their jurisdiction. ( 6 ) AS against this, Mr. Aggarwal states that the principal office of the defendant Corporation being at Lucknow and offices of the defendant Corporation being in Noida and the payment having been received by the defendant at Ghaziabad, the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Malhotra will have no application, particularly inasmuch as the cases dealt with in that judgment related to a specific kind of case of entrustment of goods for the purposes of trans-shipment and that entrustment took place at a place other than where the principal office or the registered office of the defendant was located. ( 7 ) RELYING upon (1971) 3 SCR 314 Hakam Singh Vs. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd. , it is urged that inasmuch as the defendant has its principal office at Luknow know, it is open to parties to select one of the places where the suit could be instituted, that is to say, in the instant case, either at Lucknow or at Noida/ghaziabad. ( 8 ) IN my view, the case dealt with by the Supreme Court in (1991) 4 SCC 270 was different, it related to the case of entrustment of goods. The plaintiff was carrying on business at a place where the goods were entrusted, but had its registered office elsewhere. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, Delhi courts, in my view, have no jurisdiction, because mere receipt of a letter that a particular action purporting to be under the agreement between the parties, is proposed to be taken by the plaintiff will not confer jurisdiction on courts at Delhi. ( 10 ) IT is open to parties to select one or more than one court, having jurisdiction and agree l6 give it exclusive jurisdiction for adjudication of disputes between the parties. It has been stipulated by Clause 57 of the agreement between the parties that it is only Lucknow courts, which will have the jurisdiction. ( 10 ) IT is open to parties to select one or more than one court, having jurisdiction and agree l6 give it exclusive jurisdiction for adjudication of disputes between the parties. It has been stipulated by Clause 57 of the agreement between the parties that it is only Lucknow courts, which will have the jurisdiction. ( 11 ) I, therefore, intimate the plaintiff that I propose to return the plaint in accordance with Order 7 Rule 10 (a) of Code of Civil Procedure. ( 12 ). The plaintiff is, therefore, required to move this Court in accordance with Order 7 Rule 10 (a) specifying the Court in which he proposes to present the plaint after its return. Upon the plaintiff doing so, the date for appearance of the parties in that Court shall be fixed in this Court. ( 13 ) BY agreement of counsels and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of deposit of Rs. 10,00,000. 00 mentioned in this court s order dated 02. 7. 1993 is extended till 6th August, 1993.