The agreement dated 3/10/2011 constituted a concluded and binding contract between the parties, satisfying the requirements of the Indian Contract Act. The Civil Court at Nagpur did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit due to Clause 45 of the CoA, which vested exclusive jurisdiction in the High Court of UK.

P.R. Bora, J.

1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Parties have placed on record all relevant documents which are not in dispute. Hence it would not be necessary to call for record and proceedings. Hence record and proceedings dispensed with.

2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on 07/01/2014 in Special Civil Suit No.694/2012 whereby he has dismissed the said civil suit for want of jurisdiction, the plaintiff therein has preferred the present appeal.

3. The appellant is a registered Company dealing in the business of coal. It also imports coal. During off shore acquisition of coal it requires to engage the services of the companies like the present respondent who make available the vessels for transportation of the coal. Sometimes in the month of September, 2011 the appellant and the respondent started negotiations through a broker by name M/s Saigal Sea Trade. Considerable correspondence took place between them through the broker for negotiating the terms of the fixture. The entire said correspondence is by way of Emails through the broker. The suit plaint discloses that the appellant and the respondent had been initially negotiating the terms for total 6 shipments of coal. It further reveals that since the appellant was in urgent need of coal, 2 out of 6 shipments were effected on the basis of oral agreement between the appellant and the respondent, however, as they could not arrive at any agreement on many issues the terms were not finalized for the remaining 4 shipments. It is also averred that the respondent was insisting the appellant to perform further 4 shipments or else to pay damages. It is the case of the appellant company that in spite of all bona fide efforts by it to amicably settle the matter so as to maintain the business relations the respondent filed a suit in the High Court of UK and dragged the appellant in litigation. The respondent filed a suit in the High Court of UK on the basis of the agreement dated 3/10/2011 and claimed heavy damages from the appellant. It is the contention of the appellant that the terms of the Contract of Affreightment [“CoA” for short] dated 3/10/2011 were never concluded and hence no action could have been initiated by the respondent on such agreement. It is the further case of the appellant that the respondent not only filed the suit against the appellant in the High Court of UK but also started maligning the image of the appellant in the business world. In the above circumstances, according to the appellant it was constrained to file a suit at the Civil Court at Nagpur seeking declaration that the agreement dated 3/10/2011 is null and void and not binding on the appellant. The appellant also sought permanent injunction against the respondent restraining it from enforcing the said contract. The appellant also claimed the decree of damages to the tune of Rs.50 Crores against the respondent. Along with the suit the appellant also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking ad interim injunction to thereby restrain the respondent from prosecuting its claim in the High Court of UK. The then learned Civil Judge was pleased to allow the said application vide order passed on 23rd October, 2012 and thereby temporarily restrained the respondent from prosecuting its claim bearing No. 2012/Folio No.833 before the High Court of UK till appearance of the respondent before it.

4. After being served with the suit summons and the order passed on 23rd October 2012 by the Civil Court, the respondent appeared before the Civil Court at Nagpur and submitted its say to the application for interim relief. The record shows that the respondent appeared before the Civil Court at Nagpur under protest and without submitting to the jurisdiction of the said Court. The respondent raised preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Nagpu