petitioner no. 3, M/s. Classic Caterers is not prosecuting the said W.P.(C) 7138/2022, the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are firms, which also do not have its office within the State of Assam. In W.P.(C) 7624/2022, the said M/s. Classic Caterers is petitioner no. 2, and in the cause title, the said firm has given the address at Guwahati, but in the letter of award of contract dated 04.11.2022 (pg. 159), the address of the said firm is at Delhi. The GST registration also discloses Delhi address. It is not in dispute that the registered office of IRCTC is at New Delhi. The tender was issued by respondent no. 3, having office at Delhi. The security deposit and/or other deposit by the bidders was to be paid in Delhi and in several places in the bidding/tender documents, it is clearly mentioned that the Court at Delhi would have jurisdiction. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court, the cause of action for the tender and/or bidding arose within the jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi and therefore, the Court at Delhi alone would have jurisdiction. The cases cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would not come to the rescue of the petitioners on the distinguishable facts of this case and therefore, the Court is not inclined to burden this judgment with discussion on the said cases.
