Back
DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN
Rakesh Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
HDFC Bank Ltd. – Respondent
Ratio Decidendi:
Validity of exclusive jurisdiction clauses: For an exclusive jurisdiction clause to be valid, it must (i) be in consonance with Section 28 of the Contract Act (not absolutely restricting enforcement of rights); (ii) pertain to a court that already possesses statutory jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC (a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on a court lacking it); and (iii) explicitly or impliedly confer jurisdiction on specific courts by the parties. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Applicability to employment contracts: Exclusive jurisdiction clauses in private employment contracts are enforceable like any other contract, provided they do not violate applicable laws (e.g., Contract Act or CPC). No special interference is warranted due to perceived unequal bargaining power between employer and employee; all contracts are treated equally absent vitiating factors. Legal position of private employees differs from government servants (status vs. contract). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Effect of Section 28, Contract Act: Does not invalidate exclusive jurisdiction clauses, which merely designate specific courts for adjudication without barring access to legal forums entirely. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Jurisdiction determination: Courts in Mumbai had jurisdiction here, as employment decisions (appointment, termination) originated and were dispatched from Mumbai (per Explanation to Section 20 CPC). Suits filed in Patna/Delhi courts lacked jurisdiction due to explicit "exclusive" clause. (!) (!)
Proper procedural remedy: Where plaint discloses lack of territorial jurisdiction due to valid exclusive clause but is not otherwise barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC clauses, plaint must be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation in competent court (not rejected). Liberty granted to amend plaint or claim limitation exemption under Order VII Rule 6 CPC if refiled. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
THE CHALLENGE
1. In the lead appeal1[Civil Appeal No. 2282/2025], Rakesh has called in question the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna2[Patna High Court, hereafter] dated 25th January, 2022, allowing a civil revisional application3[Civil Revision No. 23 of 2020] filed by HDFC Bank.
2. In the connected appeal4[Civil Appeal No. 2286/2025], HDFC Bank has taken exception to the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi5[Delhi High Court, hereafter] dated 12th November, 2011, dismissing its civil revisional application6[Civil Revision Petition No. 79/2021].
THE FACTS
3. The lead appeal rests on a simple set of facts, which are as follows:
II. The appointment letter of Rakesh had an exclusive jurisdiction clause, reading as under:
“The terms and conditions set out in this letter of appointment constitute service conditions applicable to your employment in the Bank and with
(1) Territorial jurisdiction of Court – Court not having jurisdiction as per statutory regime cannot be bestowed jurisdiction by means of contract.(2) As long as an employment contract does not offen....
The court established that the territorial jurisdiction of the court was not completely excluded by the jurisdiction clause of the employment agreement, and the court had the jurisdiction to entertai....
The court ruled that jurisdiction clauses in employment contracts may be disregarded for fairness, allowing local courts to hear cases where the employment relationship's substantive issues arise.
Jurisdiction clauses in contracts specifying exclusive forums are valid if they do not contravene statutory provisions.
The exclusive jurisdiction clause in a contract governs jurisdiction irrespective of the seat of arbitration or the place of hearings, emphasizing the primacy of contract in determining jurisdiction.
The existence of a jurisdiction clause in an agreement makes the intention of the parties clear, and it is not necessary to read such clauses like a statute.
Contracts of service with the State can be examined for unconscionable terms, and judicial review under Article 226 is not barred by arbitration clauses.
Rejection of plaint – General principle that suit may be filed at any place where a substantial part of cause of action arises would stand eclipsed in a case where parties have agreed to exclusive ju....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
