J. B. Goel, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff, a Non-Resident Indian is carrying on business atkuwait. He availed loan from defendant No. 1 in Kuwait against his personalguarantee for financing his business. He had a fixed deposit as "foreign Currencynon-resident Account" with defendant No. 2 at Bombay and had created a lien onthat deposit as security for the loans granted by defendant No. 1 to him. Defendantno. 1 enforcing the lien made demand on defendant No. 2 for the payment of amountfor which lien was created. In the present case the plaintiff has sought a declarationthat the lien created by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 is illegal being inviolation of Rule 29. A. 14 of the Exchange Control Manual issued by the Reservebank of India under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Banking Regulation Act and thus is null and void under Section 23 of the Contract Act andconsequent relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2from enforcing that lien is claimed. Though in the plaint, initially Reserve Bank of India is not impleaded as a party however, after the institution of the suit amendedmemo of parties has been filed impleading that Bank having New Delhi Branch asdefendant No. 3. Though, it is admitted in the plaint that defendant No. 1 has goneinto liquidation, but the defendant No. 1 has not been sued through the Liquidator,if any, appointed. However, the Official Liquidator of defendant No. 1 acting for andon its behalf has filed the application (being I. A. No. l0032-A/95) taking thepreliminary objection that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction as neitherdefendant No. 1 is carrying on any business nor any cause of action has arisen atdelhi. Defendant No. 2 also has its office at Bombay where the lien was created. Defendant No. 3 has filed application (I. A. 4501 /96 for being deleted as a defendant ). ( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the defendant No. 1 has contended that this Court willhave jurisdiction if the conditions under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code ) are fulfilled and as none of those conditions mentioned therein is fulfilled the present suit filed at Delhi is total in misuse of the processof law and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. He has relied on M/s. Bhaktavarsingh Bal Krishan v. Union of India and Ors. , (1988) 2 SCC 293 ; Oil and Natural Gascommission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. , 1994 (4) SCC 711 ; and Board of Trusteesfor the Port of Calcutta and Am. v. Bombay Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. , 1995 (2)SCC 559 . Whereas learned Counsel for the plaintiff has contended that defendantno. 1 has no activity or business in India, though lien was created at Bombay andbombay Court will also have jurisdiction but part of the cause of action arose hereas the lien in question is in violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and thedirectives issued by Reserve Bank of India and as Reserve Bank of India has its officeat Delhi, who has been impleaded as defendant No. 3, this Court also has jurisdiction. ( 3 ) IN a separate Application No. 4501 /96, learned Counsel for the Reserve Bankof India (defendant No. 3) has contended that defendant No. 3 is neither necessarynor a proper party and has been improperly impleaded as a party. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that this court will have jurisdiction if any, of the conditionsmentioned in Section 20 of the Code is fulfilled. That section reads as under : 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises-Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in acourt within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more thanone, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually andvoluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works forgain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time ofthe commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, orcarries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that insuch case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants whodo not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, asaforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (e) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. EXPLANATION-ACORPORATION shall be deemed to carry on business at its soleor principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at anyplace where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. EXPLANATION-ACORPORATION shall be deemed to carry on business at its soleor principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at anyplace where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. "a Court gets jurisdiction under Section 20 if: (i) the defendant or all the defendants,if more than one, resides or carries on business or personally works for gain withinthe local limits of its jurisdiction; or (ii) the cause of action arises wholly or in part,within such local limits. ( 5 ) IT follows that where the defendants neither reside nor carry on business norany part of the cause of action arises within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Courtsuch court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. (Bahrain Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P. K. Pappu and Am. , AIR 1966 SC 634 ) and where Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20are not applicable only that Court will be competent where cause of action whollyor in part arises (ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. , (1994) 4 SCC 711 ; Mis. Bhaktawar Singh Bal Kishan v. Union of India and Others, (1988) 2 SCC 293 andboard of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and Anr. v. Bombay Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. . (1995) 2 SCC 559 ). ( 6 ) UNDER the Explanation to Section 20, a Corporation is deemed to carry onbusiness at its sole or principal office in India, or in respect of a cause of action arisingat any place where it has also a subordinate office at such place. A Corporationcannot be sued at a place where it has a subordinate office except in respect of a causeof action arising at such subordinate office. Conversely if no part of cause of actionaccrues at the place of the branch office, the mere fact of the Corporation having abranch office will not give the Court of that place jurisdiction to entertain a suit. ( 7 ) SO far as Reserve Bank of India, (defendant No. 3) is concerned, admittedlyits Central Office is situated at Bombay and only a Branch Office exists at New Delhi. No cause of action arises nor is alleged against it. No relief is claimed against it norits presence is required for determining the controversy involved. ( 7 ) SO far as Reserve Bank of India, (defendant No. 3) is concerned, admittedlyits Central Office is situated at Bombay and only a Branch Office exists at New Delhi. No cause of action arises nor is alleged against it. No relief is claimed against it norits presence is required for determining the controversy involved. Plaintiff wants tohave recourse to the directives/orders issued by it under the Foreign Exchangeregulation Act and the Banking Regulations Act which are also not claimed to havebeen issued from Delhi Office, and must have been issued by its Central Office atbombay, to challenge the lien created on his Foreign Exchange Non-Residentaccount/ FDR in defendant No. 2-bank. On that basis it cannot be said that any causeof action to sue has arisen against the Reserve Bank of India. It is neither a necessarynor a proper party for determining the controversy involved. It has been improperlyimpleaded apparently to create/claim territorial jurisdiction in this Court. Thisaction on the part of the plaintiff is nothing but a misuse of the process of law. LA. No. 4501/96:this application of defendant No. 3, Reserve Bank of India under Order 1, Rule10 of the Code is accordingly allowed with costs. Name of defendant No. 3 be deletedfrom the array of defendants. Costs Rs. 3,000. 00. LA. 10032-A/95:by this application apparently under Order 7, Rule II of the Code thedefendant has challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The account of theplaintiff on which lien was created is with defendant No. 2-bank at Bombay. Lienwas created at Bombay. In the suit the validity/legality of that lien is challenged. Thecause of action wholly or in part for that purpose against defendant Nos. 1 and/or2 has not arisen at Delhi. Defendant No. 1 is not carrying on any business in Delhior even in India. The cause of action, if any, would have arisen at Bombay where thelien was created and defendant No. 2 also carry on its business there. This Court thus,has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit against defendant Nos. 1and 2 as well. This application is accordingly allowed with costs. Costs Rs. 3,000. 00. SUIT No. 2299/94:in view of the above discussion, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction toentertain the suit. This Court thus,has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit against defendant Nos. 1and 2 as well. This application is accordingly allowed with costs. Costs Rs. 3,000. 00. SUIT No. 2299/94:in view of the above discussion, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction toentertain the suit. The plaint be accordingly returned to the plaintiff for beingpresented to the Court of competent jurisdiction on 27/02/1998 subject to thecondition that the plaintiff shall pay the aforesaid costs either to the defendants 1 and3 or deposit the same in this Court before the plaint is returned. LA. No. 9217/94:as this Court has no jurisdiction, this application is dismissed. Interiminjunction granted on 21. 10. 94 is vacated. LA. No. 6476/96. Dismissed as infructuous.