INTERCORP INDUSTRIES LTD. vs JAI BHAGWAN MANN

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of District Forum, Karnal dated 18th September, 1995, by which the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction taken by the appellant before the Forum was discarded. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the District Forum has clearly noticed that the contract between the parties provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of Delhi Courts only. He has further stated that inspite of number of rulings having been urged before the District Forum on this point, it has chosen to decide the matter against the appellant. As the view taken by the learned District Forum is manifestly illegal, therefore, the appeal should be accepted and the complaint filed by the respondent should be dismissed. The learned Counsel for the respondent has justified the order of the District Forum on the ground that the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and therefore, it could entertain the complaint filed by the respondent.

WE have carefully gone through the order of the District Forum and considered the reason mentioned therein. There is no denial of the fact that the following expressions have been used in the bills by which the purchase was made by the respondent - "subject exclusively to Delhi Courts jurisdiction only." Therefore, it is quite clear that not only the fact that only Delhi Courts will have jurisdiction if any dispute arises, between the parties, but it has also further been emphasised that the jurisdiction will vest exclusively in Delhi Courts. Therefore, the intent of the contract between the parties is abundantly clear that any dispute would be subject to trial before the Courts in Delhi and nowhere else. The learned District Forum has distinguished the rulings cited by the present appellant before it on the ground that the Consumer Protection Act being a beneficial legislation, FORA set up under this Act cannot be shackled with intricacies and technicalities of Civil Procedure Code. However, it has chosen to ignore the fact that even in consumer jurisdiction the matter has to be decided in the light of and upon the terms and conditions settled in the contract between the parties and in case it has been agreed that only particular jurisdiction will be applicable then it cannot be extended to include other jurisdiction. It is only where the clause regarding jurisdiction is neither clear nor explicit that the Courts where a part of the cause of action arises may have jurisdiction. But where the jurisdiction clause is clear and explicit then the agreement between the parties has to be respected and other Courts cannot arrogate jurisdiction to themselves against the express agreement between the parties. As pointed out earlier, in the present case, it has been doubly made sure that the jurisdiction will vest in Delhi Courts by the use of the word exclusively as well as only. Under the circumstances, there can be no manner of doubt that the parties had agreed to refer any dispute to Courts in Delhi only and the jurisdiction of Courts anywhere else in the country was expressly excluded. Under the circumstances, we have to hold that the Karnal District Forum had no jurisdiction to try this complaint. Accordingly, we accept this petition and dismiss the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum, Karnal. Revision Petition allowed.