A foreign jurisdiction clause in a contract is valid and enforceable as a contractual stipulation, but it cannot be pleaded as a bar to the jurisdiction of a court that otherwise has jurisdiction to try a suit. In exercising its discretion to stay a suit in light of a foreign jurisdiction clause, the court will consider factors such as the balance of convenience, the connection of the dispute with the relevant countries, and the availability of justice in the foreign forum.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order of G. K. Mitter J. , directing stay of a suit instituted by the appellant against the respondents. The respondents (appellant?) are Indian merchants. They placed an order for 968, 870 and 423 bundles of Mild Steel Round bars with certain Italian shippers. The Italian shippers shipped those goods under three bills of lading dated 6-3-1956, 10-3-1956 and 27-3-1956. The goods were shipped per S. S. Alga, a steamship belonging to the respondents, Messrs. Llyod Triestino Societa per Azinni Di Navigazibne Sede in Triesta. The goods were to be conveyed from Italy to the port of Calcutta. The steamship S. S. Alga duly arrived at the port of Calcutta on the 22nd May, 1956. The plaintiff alleges that 22 bundles of the goods were short-landed. In support of its contention it relies on a short-landing certificate issued by the Commissioners for the port of Calcutta. On or about the 8th of June, 1957, the plaintiff-appellant as the holder of the three bills of lading instituted a suit against the steamship company, the respondent No. 1, as also its agents Messrs. Turner Morrison and Co. , Private Ltd. , the respondent No. 2 in this appeal, claiming a sum of Rs. 15,154/06 np. from both the respondents. The Commissioners for the port of Calcutta have also been impleaded as defendants to the suit. Each of the bills of lading contains the following clause:"all requests for compensation in respect of damage, shortage, deterioration, loss of goods loaded shall be submitted for friendly settlement to the agencies of the shipping company at the place of discharge, failing a friendly agreement, both the shipper and the receiver as well as any other party interested in the cargo, if intending to take legal steps against the company, for the above-mentioned causes and in general for whatsoever other causes may summon them before Judicial Authorities of Trieste or Genoa hereby expressly renouncing the competence of any other Judicial Authorities. No exception must be made to this exclusive competence even if the company is sued party (defendant) by reason of connection or contingency of the law suits. "

( 2 ) OR the strength of this clause the defendants respondents applied to the Original Side of this Court for an order staying all further proceedings in the suit. G. K. Mitter J. , made the order prayed for. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal from that order.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff claiming as the endorsee of the hills of lading is entitled to enforce and is bound by the terms and conditions of the bills of lading including Clause 31, which I have set out above.

( 4 ) IT is admitted in the pleadings and it was admitted before us that the contract contained in the bills of lading is governed by the Italian law. The concession was rightly made. Clause 32 of each of the bills of lading provides that "for anything which has not been provided for or foreseen in the present contract of carriage the provisions of Italian Code of Navigation shall apply. " The contract of afreightment was entered into between an Italian shipping company and an Italian firm in Italy. The goods were shipped on a steamer flying the Italian flag. In these circumstances there can be no doubt that the Italian law is the proper law of the contract contained in the several bills of lading.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the appellant it was argued that the several contracts contained in the bills of lading are hit by the provisions of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act. In my opinion there is no substance in this point. The essential validity of the contracts will have to be judged and determined by the proper law of the contracts namely the Italian law. There is neither any allegation nor any proof that the Italian law in any way renders Clause 31 invalid. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act cannot and does not render invalid a contract entered into in Italy between two Italian subjects for the carriage of goods from Italy to India on