Interpretation of printed words on a receipt and the requirement for a clear agreement to confer exclusive jurisdiction on a particular Court.

BHAT, J. :- Appellant is the plaintiff in the Court below. Plaintiff filed a suit for realisation of damages from a carrier. Defendant raised several contentions including the contention that the Bombay Court alone had jurisdiction and not the local Court. The Court below took up the suit for trial and answered all the issues. In doing so, the Court below held that the Bombay Court alone had jurisdiction as the jurisdiction of all other Courts has been excluded. As a result, the Court returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. It is this order which is now challenged.

2. The consignor entrusted to the respondent cotton yarn for despatch and delivery to the consignee in Delhi in three consignments. The appellant, insurer, had covered these consignments at the request of the consignor. The goods reached Delhi. The consignee refused to take delivery of five bales of cotton yarn since they were found to be in damaged condition. The damaged yarn was re-booked through the Delhi office of the carrier on the request of the consignor. They were taken delivery of by the consignor in a damaged condition. The damage was assessed by the surveyor. The consignor submitted a claim to the insurer. The claim was settled at Rs. 10,894.80 and paid by the insurer. The insurer became subrogated to the rights of the consignor in accordance with S.89 of the Marine Insurance Act and Exts. A7 and A8. Thereafter, appellant filed the suit for recovery of damages from the carrier alleging negligence.

3. We are now concerned mainly with the question of jurisdiction of the Court below to entertain the suit. The respondent had two-pronged contention. Respondent contended that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court below and in any event the lorry receipts Ext. B1 series conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Bombay Court. The lower Court held that a part of the cause of action arose within its own jurisdiction. The Court below further held that the parties agreed to exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts except the Bombay Court and therefore it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

4. An almost identical case came up for consideration in Economic Transport Organisation v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1986 Ker LT 220. In that case also a way bill or receipt contained printed inscription of words "subject to Calcutta jurisdiction only". The question arose whether these printed words constitute an agreement to oust the jurisdiction of all Courts other than the Calcutta Court and whether the exclusion would be valid. After referring to practically all the decisions of this Court and some decisions of other High Courts as also decision of the Supreme Court in Hakam Singh v. Gammon, AIR 197, SC 740, the Court observed :

"17. When there is choice of forum, it is certainly open to the parties to agree on an exclusive forum for settlement of disputes. But such an agreement must be clearly spelled out either by express words or by necessary implication. Ouster of jurisdiction of Courts cannot be lightly assumed or presumed. If there is such a concluded agreement, it will certainly operate as estoppel against the parties to the contract. If it is merely a unilateral affirmation or statement made by one of the parties, as long as it is not shown 'that the statement has been accepted by the other party as a term or condition of the agreement, it cannot be held that there is an agreement to confer exclusive jurisdiction on any Court. Particular caution is necessary in regard to such a clause contained in a printed form, as in this case. Where the printed form is signed by both the parties or where a form printed by one party is signed by the other party and forwarded by the latter to the former and the printed form contains clear words conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a Court at any particular place or ousting jurisdiction of the court at any other place, it may not be difficult to hold that the partie