JUDGMENT

N.D.OJHA,J.

(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) SINCE in both these appeals an identical question of law arises they are being decided by a common judgment. Facts in a nutshell necessary for appreciating the question involved may be stated. M/s Patel Roadways (P) Limited, the appellant in both these appeals carries on the business of a carrier and transports goods on hire. It has its principal office at Bombay and branch offices at various other places which shall hereinafter be referred to as subordinate offices.

(3) M/S Prasad Trading Company, the respondent in the civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14660 of 1990 who is a dealer in cardamom entrusted a consignment of 850 kilograms of cardamom to the appellant at its subordinate office at Bodinayakanur in Tamil Nadu to be delivered at Delhi. After the goods had been transported by the appellant and kept in a godown at Delhi the same got destroyed and damaged in a fire as a result whereof the consignee refused to take delivery. The respondent instituted a suit in the court of Subordinate Judge, Periakulam within whose territorial jurisdiction the subordinate office of the appellant where the goods were entrusted for transport is situate for damages alleging that fire was due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the staff of the appellant.

(4) M/S Tropical Agro Systems Private Limited, the respondent 1 in the Civilarising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14692 of 1990 on the other hand entrusted certain packets of pesticides insured with respondent 2, M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited to the appellant at its subordinate office at Madras for being carried to New Delhi. According to the respondents the goods aforesaid were delivered at New Delhi in a damaged condition resulting in loss to respondent 1 and a suit was instituted for recovery of the loss so sustained by the respondents in the court of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil court, Madras. In both the suits the appellant inter alia took the plea in its defence that in the contract entered into between them the parties had agreed that jurisdiction to decide any dispute between them would be only with the courts at Bombay and consequently the courts in Madras where the two suits referred to above had been instituted had no jurisdiction. This plea was repelled in both the suits by the trial court. The order of the trial court in each of the two suits was challenged by the appellant before the High court of Judicature at Madras under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). This challenge having failed in each of the civil revisions, the appellant has preferred these civil appeals. The question which arises in both these civil appeals, therefore, is as to whether in view of the relevant clause in the contract between the parties the courts at Bombay alone had jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the courts at Madras where the two suits were instituted was barred.

(5) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that apart from the courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the goods were delivered to the appellant for transport, the courts at Bombay also had jurisdiction to entertain a suit arising out of the contract between the parties in view of the Explanation to S. 20 of the Code inasmuch as the principal office of the appellant was situate in Bombay. According to learned counsel for the appellant since courts at two places namely Madras and Bombay had jurisdiction in the matter, the jurisdiction of the courts in Madras was ousted by the clause in the contract whereunder the parties had agreed that jurisdiction to decide any dispute under the contract would be only in the courts at Bombay. Consequently the courts where the two suits were instituted had no jurisdiction to entertain them and the trial court in each of the two cases as well as the High court erred in law