Aruna Suresh, J.

1. Plaintiff company Swatch Limited, registered under the laws of Switzerland, has filed the present suit for recovery of money amounting to CHF 97,554.18 (Rs. 3,511,950.48/-) against the defendant.

2. Undisputed facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiff company entered into a distribution agreement with the defendant for watches manufactured by the plaintiff in the territory of North and East India for a term of 3 years from March 1, 2000 to February 28, 2003. Subsequent to February 28, 2003, plaintiff supplied watches to the defendant amounting to CHF 47,554.18 (approximately Rs. 17,11,950.48/-) during the month of July, 2003 and raised seven invoices dated 10.7.2003, 21.7.2003, 21.7.2003, 28.7.2003, 28.7.2003, 30.7.2003, 30.7.2003 for the said amount. Besides plaintiff has also claimed imprest amount from the defendant amounting to CHF 50,000 and accordingly raised a demand on the defendant for the payment of the said amounts totaling to CHF 97,554.18 vide letter dated 12.4.2006 within 21 days.

3. In para 14 of the plaint, it is averred by the plaintiff that as per article 17 of the of the distribution agreement any dispute arising out of it between the parties is to be governed by and interpreted and construed in accordance with Swiss laws and law of limitation under the Swiss Law is 10 years as per general rule set out in Article 127 of the Swiss Code of Obligations. thereforee, plaintiff has claimed that the suit is within the period of limitation. Plaintiff has claimed that Courts at Delhi has the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as defendant has its registered office in Delhi. The cause of action has arisen in Delhi as the goods were supplied by the plaintiff at Delhi and the business of the defendant is conducted from Delhi.

4. Since prima facie from the averments contained in the plaint, the suit of the plaintiff was found to be barred by period of limitation as it was filed approximately a year after the expiry of period of limitation, the matter was placed before the Court for directions regarding the issue of limitation, vide order of the Joint Registrar dated 23.8.2007. I have heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff at length and have gone through the pleadings contained in the plaint as well as documents placed on record.

5. Article 17 of the Distribution Agreement dated 1.3.2000 inter se the parties is relevant for the purposes of present issue under consideration. Hence, it is reproduced as follows:

This agreement shall be governed by, and interpreted and construed in accordance with Swiss Law. The parties herewith expressly exclude the applicability of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of April 11, 1980.

Any and all disputes arising in connection with this agreement shall be submitted solely to the competent courts of Canton of Bern/Switzerland.

6. Reading of this article makes it clear that the parties to the agreement are governed by the Swiss laws and the agreement has to be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of Switzerland. In case of dispute having arisen in connection with this agreement, the parties agreed to submit solely to the competent courts of the Canton of Bern/Switzerland. In other words, the parties agreed that the Swiss courts shall have the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute arising out of the contract and the parties shall be governed by the Swiss laws. These laws clearly exclude the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts to entertain any dispute or claim arising out of this agreement and also application of Indian laws to such disputes. The fact remains the plaintiff chose to file the present suit in India and not in Switzerland. This agreement came to an end on 28.2.2003. thereforee, after the termination of the agreement by afflux of time, it takes out the defendant from the purview of application of Article 17. thereforee, claim of the plaintiff for imprest amount of CHF 50,000