Back
RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Bihar State Electricity Board – Appellant
Versus
Shree Industries – Respondent
Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.—Heard Mr. Venkatesh Kirti, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The present appeal is being preferred for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2001, passed in money suit no. 23 of 1998 by Sub-Judge-IV, Bhagalpur, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to decree the aforementioned money suit in favour of the plaintiff / respondent and directed the appellants / defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,20,451.66/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand four hundred and fifty-one rupees and 66 paise) with interest at the rate of 23% on monthly rates w.e.f. 15.03.1996 along with interest pendent lite at the same rate and has further held that the plaintiff is also entitled to realization of 6% per annum of simple interest from the date of order till its realization.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants (Bihar State Electricity Board) floated a tender bearing NIT No. 131 for supply of 250 MT G.I. wires as per specification in all over Bihar.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that clause 27 of NIT No. 131 contained the juri
Territorial jurisdiction in arbitration agreements prevails over statutory provisions when parties explicitly state preferred jurisdiction in contracts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of territorial jurisdiction can be tried as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The court upheld the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract, affirming that disputes related to bank guarantees must be adjudicated in Mumbai, not Secunderabad.
Jurisdiction in contract disputes depends on where significant acts occurred, not solely on contractual jurisdiction clauses.
The jurisdiction for tender disputes arose in New Delhi as per exclusive jurisdiction clause, not in States where the bidders operated.
The Courts at Patiala did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent as the suit property/res is situated in Gurugram. The agreement in question is a forged and fabricated document....
A court cannot be denied jurisdiction by an agreement between parties if that court is competent to adjudicate the matter based on where the breach occurred and the nature of the contract.
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
