2004 Supreme(SC) 512

2004(4) Supreme 191
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi)
Mrs. Ruma Pal & P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.
Man Roland Druckimachinen AG -Appellant
versus
Multicolour Offset Ltd. and Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7244 of 1999
Decided on 19-4-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sunil Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Mohna Lal, Rajiv Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Arvind Minocha, Ravi Sharma, V.K. Rao, Satish Kumar, Ms. Madhu Sikri, Advocates.

Headnote:(i) Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969-Sections 4(1) and 12B(1)-Unfair trade practice complaint with compensation claim in respect of a printing machine sold to complainant-respondent No.1 by appellant a manufacturer in Germany-Objection to Commission s jurisdiction that parties had agreed that disputes between parties should be resolved either by proceedings brought in German Court or through arbitration in accordance with International Chamber of Commerce Rules-MRTP Commission dismissed objection-Appeal-Principle regarding consensual conferment of jurisdiction on one Court or other is applicable to a situation where Court is called upon to enforce rights arising under a contract which contains such jurisdictional clause-Principle would not apply to proceedings under the Act which provides for statutory remedies.

       Held : Undoubtedly when the parties have agreed on a particular forum, the Courts will enforce such agreement. This is not because of a lack or ouster of its own jurisdiction by reason of consensual conferment of jurisdiction on another Court, but because the Court will not be party to a breach of an agreement. Such an agreement is not contrary to public policy nor does it contravene Section 28 or Section 23 of the Contract Act. This has been held in Hakkam Singh V. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd. AIR 1971 SC 740; A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. V. A.P. Agencies 1889 (2) SCC 163 and Modi Entertainment Network V. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd. 2003 (4) SCC 341, 351. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Rajendra Sethia V. Punjab National Bank AIR 1991 Del. 285 relied on by the Commission which holds to the contrary is, therefore, clearly erroneous. But although the Commission rejected the first submission of the appellant on an untenable ground, nevertheless the conclusion arrived at was correct. The principle which we have outlined in the previous paragraph is applicable to a situation where the Court is called upon to enforce rights arising under a contract which contains such a jurisdictional clause. The principle does not apply to proceedings under the Act which provides for statutory remedies in respect of statutorily defined offences. The remedies available under the Act are additional to the usual remedies available under the Contract Act to the parties. This is clear inter alia from Sections 4(1) and 12 B(1) of the Act, both of which indicate that the proceedings under the Act are additional to, and therefore distinct from, proceedings before a Civil Court. The powers invoked by the complainant under the Act are not exercisable otherwise than under the Act and it is certainly not exercisable by Courts in Germany. The jurisdictional clause in the contract would therefore not apply to proceedings before the Commission. This is so even assuming that the Commission is a "Court" as contended by the appellant on the basis of Canara Bank V. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. 1993 Supp (3) SCC 81 and P. Sarathy V. State Bank of India 2000 (5) SCC 355. (Paras 9 & 10)

       (ii) Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969-Sections 12B and 14-Unfair trade practice complaint concerning a printing machine sold to complainant-respondent No.1 by appellant, a manufacturer in Germany-Objection as to jurisdiction of Commission on plea that appellant neither provided any service nor carried any trade or trade practice in India and that machine in question was sold out side India-Unfair trade practice-Allegations in complaint that appellant and respondent No.2, an agent, had made statements which were false because the appellant had not sold, but also respondent No.2 had failed to repair the machine-Objection as to jurisdiction of Commission raised by appellant was required to be determined on evidence-Commission failed to consider all the factual objections-Its refusal to consider the question of passing of title in machine as unnecessary to the question of jurisdiction was error-"Effect doctrine" in unfair trade practice would apply provided that effect amounted to a restrictive trade practice in India-Matter required to be reconsidered by Commission as regards objection to jurisdiction of Commission on evidence. (Paras 22 to 26)