Back
Bombay High Court
APTE,JAHAGIDAR
Ghatge and Patil (Transport) - Appellant
Versus
Madhusudan Ramkumar - Respondent
Decided On : 11/17/1976
JURISDICTION - CONTRACT - GOODS FORWARDING NOTE - SUBJECT TO KOLHAPUR JURISDICTION - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION - EFFECT ON COURT'S JURISDICTION - CHOICE OF FORUM - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - TORTIOUS ACT - DISTINCTION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a shop owner in Poona, placed an order for sarees with a consignor in Belgaum. The consignor entrusted the sarees to the defendants, a transport company, under a Goods Forwarding Note (GFN) mentioning "Subject to Kolhapur Jurisdiction" at the top. The consignment was to be delivered to the plaintiff at Pimpri within the jurisdiction of the Poona Court. The plaintiff claimed the value of the sarees from the defendants after they failed to deliver them. The defendants contended that the Poona Court lacked jurisdiction due to the GFN's term and that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue.
Finding of the Court:
1. The GFN's term "Subject to Kolhapur Jurisdiction" was a valid and binding part of the contract between the parties. 2. The parties' agreement to choose Kolhapur as the forum for dispute resolution was not rendered invalid by the fact that part of the cause of action arose within the Poona Court's jurisdiction. 3. The balance of convenience did not favor allowing the suit to proceed in Poona, given that the contract specified Kolhapur as the forum and the evidence was primarily located there. 4. The suit was based on a contract, not a tort, and thus the GFN's term applied.
Issues: 1. Whether the GFN's term "Subject to Kolhapur Jurisdiction" was valid and binding. 2. Whether the parties' agreement to choose Kolhapur as the forum for dispute resolution was invalid due to the fact that part of the cause of action arose within the Poona Court's jurisdiction. 3. Whether the balance of convenience favored allowing the suit to proceed in Poona. 4. Whether the suit was based on a contract or a tort.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The GFN's term "Subject to Kolhapur Jurisdiction" was prominently displayed and signed by the consignor, indicating his knowledge and acceptance of the term. 2. The parties' agreement to choose Kolhapur as the forum was not rendered invalid by the fact that part of the cause of action arose within the Poona Court's jurisdiction, as the parties were free to choose a forum by agreement. 3. The balance of convenience did not favor allowing the suit to proceed in Poona, given that the contract specified Kolhapur as the forum and the evidence was primarily located there. 4. The suit was based on a contract, not a tort, as the allegations in the plaint disclosed a claim based on the contract to transport the goods, without any suggestion of negligence or conversion.
Final Decision: The court held that the Poona Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit due to the GFN's term "Subject to Kolhapur Jurisdiction." The decree of the Poona Court was set aside, and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court in Kolhapur.
APTE, J. :- The petitioners who were original defendants in the Court below are a public limited company doing business of transport by road and having their Head Office at Kolhapur. They have also sub-offices at different places to accept goods from the clients and to carry them to their destinations and deliver them to the consignees.
2. One of their offices is at Belgaum and also one at Pimpri within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Poona.
3. The respondent is a shop styled as M/s. Madhusudan Ramkumar of which Shamsunder Lalchand Mundada is the proprietor. It is doing business of dealing in cloth at Poona.
4. It appears that the respondent-plaintiff placed an order for some handloom sarees with one Harinarayan Govindlal Zanvar of Shahapur, which is a suburb of Belgaum, Harinarayan Zanvar on receiving this order, entrusted a bundle containing sarees ordered by the plaintiff to the defendants at their Belgaum office under what is called 'Goods Forwarding Note' at Exh.72. At the top of this note it was written in Italics in brackets "Subject to Kolhapur Jurisdiction." This Note is in the form of a request by the consignor to the defendants to accept these goods for transport and deliver them at Pimpri. There is a tabular form in this Note, the first column of which is meant to mention the name and full postal address of the sender; the second column is meant to mention the name and full postal address of consignee (if addressed to self the word 'self' is required to be written). Then the third column is meant for description of articles or packages and then the columns that follow are meant for mentioning the number of articles and the value thereof.
5. Now, in Exh.72 in the first column the name of the sender shown is H.G. Zanwar of Shahapur-Belgaum and in the second column the name of Madhusudan Ramkumar, has been mentioned as the consignee and the place has been mentioned as Pimpri. The description of the articles is given as 'H.L. Sarees' i.e. Handloom sarees, one gunny case. The value of the articles is shown as Rs. 1576.00. Below this tabular form there is an endorsement as follows:
"I/We do hereby certify that I/We have satisfied myself/ourselves, the description, marks or weight or quality of goods consumed by me/us have been correctly entered in the forwarding note and the "consignment is booked with a full knowledge of conditions recorded on the reverse which conditions I/We accept."
This endorsement has been signed by the consignor. The consignment was booked on May 13, 1970 from Belgaum.
6. The plaintiff's case was that this consignment of sarees which were purchased by him from the consignor ought to have been received by him within 3 or 4 days at the most at Pimpri but they were not received. He made repeated enquiries at the office of the defendants at Pimpri but he did not get any satisfactory reply and therefore ultimately he concluded that the consignment had been lost by the defendants. He, therefore, served a notice dated July 8, 1970 through his Advocate on the defendants calling upon the defendants to deliver the consignment immediately or in the alternative to pay the price of Rs. 1576/- thereof together with interest at 10 per cent per annum.
7. No reply was received from the defendants to this notice and, therefore, the suit in which this civil revision application arises was instituted by the plaintiff on September 9, 1970 in the Court of Small Causes at Poona claiming to recover Rs. 1880/- from the defendants which included Rs. 1576/- as the price of the articles, Rs. 157/- on account of loss of profit which the plaintiff would have earned by sale of these articles, Rs. 30/- as interest in lieu of damages from 15-7-1970 till the date of suit, and Rs. 17/- being the expenses incurred for giving notice.
8. The claim was resisted by the defendants contending inter alia that the consignment having been accepted by the defendants for transport from the consignor subject to Kolhapur jurisdiction,
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
