M/s Best and Crompton Engineering Limited and others vs Patel Roadways Private Ltd., Bombay

The plaintiffs in O.S. No.9635 of 1987 on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras are the revision petitioners. The

respondent is the defendant in that suit. The suit is laid for recovering money representing the value of the non-delivered goods entrusted by the

plaintiffs to the defendant as carriers. The entrustment was at Madras and the place of destination is Ahmedabad. The entrustment was under the

goods consignment note, exhibited in this case as Ex.B1. This goods consignment note contains a clause that any dispute arising out of this contract

between the parties should be decided only by the Courts at Bombay. Relying upon this clause the defendant raised an objection before the

learned Trial Judge that the Court at Madras has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The objection was sustained and the learned Trial Judge returned

the plaint to be presented before the appropriate forum. This order is under challenge before this Court in this revision.

I heard Mr. R. Nageswaran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Ms. Anitha, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent. This submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is when the entrustment to the defendant is at Madras and the place

of destination under the contract is at Ahmedabad it is not open to the parties to confer by an agreement jurisdiction on a Court which has no

cause of action. In other words according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners the parties can agree to have jurisdiction conferred on

either of the two places namely Madras or Ahmedabad but definitely not at Bombay where no part of cause of action has arisen at all. Opposing

these submissions the learned counsel Ms. Anitha submitted that the defendant has its registered office at Bombay and when the defendant has it''s

registered office at a particular place men Section 20 of CPC recognizes that as a place where the suit can be levied. Therefore the learned counsel

for the respondent would state that the contract entered into between the parties conferring jurisdiction on the courts at Bombay where the

defendant has a registered office is permissible in law.

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side I perused the order under challenge. Mr. R. Nageswaran, learned

counsel appearing for the revision petitioners brought to my notice a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India reported in M/s. Patel

Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. M/s. Prasad Trading Company, wherein it has been laid down as follows:-

Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), S. 20 - Civil Court - Territorial jurisdiction - Suit for damages against Corporation - Corporation having subordinate office

in place where cause of action arose - Court at such place would have jurisdiction Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on Court where Corporation

has its principal office.

In view of this categorical pronouncement on the point of law I have no hesitation to hold that the contract between the parties conferring

jurisdiction on Courts in Bombay is unenforceable and the suit laid in Madras wherein a part of the cause of action has arisen is maintainable.

Accordingly the revision is allowed. The learned Trial Judge is directed to take the plaint on his file and then dispose it of in accordance with law.

However there is no order as to costs.