Vikramajit Sen, J. ( 1 ) THE brevity of this judgment is in diametric distinction to the lengthy arguments addressed before me by learned counsel for the petitioner. Its briefness is intended to be so, since the point agitated in these proceedings is not res nova, and is squarely covered by a pronouncement of the Apex Court and recent judgments of the separate Division Benches of this Court. ( 2 ) THE State Trading Corporation of India, Jalandhar invited tenders for the annual supply of Andaman Cane, pursuant to which an Agency Agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and the Branch Manager (Jalandhar) Branch of S. T. C. supplies were to be made and were made at Jalandhar; documents were to be submitted in Jalandhar; and the Agreement specified that disputes between the parties were to be decided in Jalandhar, as in fact later transpired. ( 3 ) IN the course of hearing it was briefly argued that since two arbitral hearings were held in Delhi, this occurance thereby clothed this Court with jurisdiction. This argument was later given up, presumably in deference with three judgments of this Court, which on similar grounds, held to be contrary. It was, however, tenaciously asserted that this Court had territorial jurisdiction for the reason that the Award was pronounced at New Delhi. This fact has been categorically denied by the Respondents. However it has spurred the petitioner into arguing that a mixed question of fact and law has thereby arisen, necessitating a trial on this question. This is obviously a vain effort to retain the adjudication to this Court. From a perusal of the Award I find no reason to accept the petitioner s self-serving and bald statement that this actually transpired. All attending circumstances points in the direction of the Award having been published in Jalandhar. ( 4 ) A number of precedents have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of addressing, oral arguments as well as in the Written Arguments filed thereafter, even in the face of the decision in M/s. Patel Roadways Limited v. M/s. Prasad Trading Company, AIR 1992 SC 1514 , which appears to be the Restatement of the law applicable to the controversy sought to be raised in the present case. Without more, I am only detailing them here - Union of India and Anr. Without more, I am only detailing them here - Union of India and Anr. V. Shri Ladulal Jain, AIR 1963 SC 1681 , Bakhtawar Singh v. Union of India, JT 1988 (1) SC 467, Shri Ram Rattan Bhartia v. Food Corporation of India and Anr. , AIR 1978 Delhi 183, Sh. Kuldeep Singh v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1986 Delhi 56 and Mrs. Gupta Sanitary Stores v. Union of India and Anr. , AIR 1985 Delhi 122. These judgments have been considered by two separate Division Benches, and learned counsel s argument that they have been wrongly decided cannot appropriately be urged before me. Learned counsel continued to rely on Bakhtawar Singh s case (supra) even though the decision in M/s. Patel Roadways s case (supra) is on all fours and has been delivered later. I am in respectful agreement with the judgments delivered by these Division Benches in Union of India v. Electronic Controls and Instrument Engineers, 68 (1997) DLT 739 (DB) and B. B. Verma v. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. , 80 (1999) DLT 498 (DB ). ( 5 ) THE cause of action has not arisen in Delhi and hence even though the Respondent has its offices in Delhi, this Court would lack territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Subject to payment of Rs. 10,000. 00 as costs; half being payable to Partial Legal Aid for Middle Income Group, and half to the Respondent, the Petitioner is granted sixty days time to present the petition in a Court of competent jurisdiction. ( 6 ) I. A. as well as petition is disposed of accordingly.