Back
1979 Supreme(Raj) 164
Rajasthan High Court
N. M. KASLIWAL
Jaishree Luxury House, 76 Shopping Centre, Kota - Appellant
Versus
Kathotia Sons, Registered Partnership Firm Delhi - Respondent
Civil Revn. Petn. No. 259 of 1979
Decided On : 10/11/1979
K.C. Garg, for Petitioners; V.D. Mathur and M.P. Mathur, for Non-Petitioner.
An agreement between parties to restrict a dispute to a particular Court having jurisdiction is not contrary to public policy and does not contravene Section 28 of the Contract Act. However, the Court has the discretion to ignore such an ouster clause and exercise its jurisdiction in certain circumstances, such as when the clause is oppressive or unjust.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - CONTRACT - TERMS AND CONDITIONS - INTERPRETATION - EFFECT ON JURISDICTION - COURT'S DISCRETION TO IGNORE OUSTER CLAUSE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, filed a suit against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of money. The defendants contended that the Court at Jaipur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per the terms and conditions printed on the back of the goods receipt and the bill, which stated that all claims and disputes were to be settled in Delhi Courts only.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the conditions printed on the back of the order form did not confer jurisdiction on the Delhi Courts. The condition regarding legal proceedings instituted by purchasers only applied to the defendants and not the plaintiff. The bill containing the words "subject to Delhi jurisdiction" was not signed by the defendants and thus could not be considered as a binding agreement. The Court also noted that there were no words "only" used after the words "subject to Delhi jurisdiction" on the bill, which meant that other Courts with jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure were not excluded.
Issues: 1. Whether the terms and conditions printed on the back of the goods receipt and the bill conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Delhi Courts. 2. Whether the Court could ignore the ouster clause and exercise its jurisdiction in the given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the conditions printed on the back of the order form did not confer jurisdiction on the Delhi Courts. The condition regarding legal proceedings instituted by purchasers only applied to the defendants and not the plaintiff. The bill containing the words "subject to Delhi jurisdiction" was not signed by the defendants and thus could not be considered as a binding agreement. 2. The Court noted that there were no words "only" used after the words "subject to Delhi jurisdiction" on the bill, which meant that other Courts with jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure were not excluded. The Court also observed that the agreement between the parties to restrict the dispute to a particular Court was not oppressive, and the Court could not ignore such stipulation and entertain the suit.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition and held that the Jaipur Courts had jurisdiction to try the suit.
ORDER :- This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated the 11th April, 1979.
2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,155.70 against the defendants-petitioners. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm having its Head Office at Delhi and a Branch Office at Guda House, Rasta Haldiyan, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. The defendants No. 2 placed an order on behalf of defendant No. 1 M/s. Jaishree Luxury House, a registered partnership firm, situated at Kota for the purchase of 48 Electric fans at Jaipur at Branch Office of the plaintiff's firm vide Order No. 7035 dated 20 Dec. 1978. The fans were sent through Globe Transport. Corporation, which were delivered to the defendants vide Order Form No. 098724 dated the 24th February, 1977 and vide Bill No. 1236 of the same date. According to the plaintiff the contract was made at Jaipur, as such the Court at Jaipur had jurisdiction to decide the suit. The defendants filed a written statement inter alia taking an objection that the Court at Jaipur had no jurisdiction to entertain the above suit and as such was liable to be dismissed. The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed five issues out of which Issue No. 2 was framed as under :
Issue No. 2 : Whether the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit ?
Arguments were heard on this issue and the learned trial Court decided the same in favour of the plaintiff. Hence this revision-petition by the two defendants.
3. The defendants have not specifically denied the making of the contract at Jaipur and the learned counsel for the defendants has also admitted before this Court that a part of the cause of action having arisen at Jaipur, Court at Jaipur may have jurisdiction but the contention of the learned counsel is that according to the terms and conditions printed on the back of the goods Receipt No. 7035 dated the 20th Dec., 1976 all claims and sums due on account of breach of any condition of the contract could only be settled and instituted in Delhi Courts which should alone have jurisdiction. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the conditions Nos. 1, 2 and 11 printed on the back of the Order Form No. 7035 which are reproduced as under :-
1. Quotation :- The offer made by firm shall be deemed to be a quotation only and shall not become binding on the firm as an agreement until orders are accepted in writing without alteration or change by an authorised officer of the firm in Delhi and notice of acceptance sent to purchasers.
2. Condition of Sale :- All orders booked by the firm are subject to these General Conditions of sales and Terms of Business and all purchasers are deemed to have signified their acceptance of such conditions by placing the order.
11. Disputes :- Customers' orders against this quotation are accepted in Delhi and all matters, claims and disputes arising in respect of these terms and conditions and/or out of or in connection with orders and acceptances are to be settled in Delhi and all claims and sums due on any account paid by the parties in Delhi. Any legal proceedings in respect of any matters, claims or disputes on any account or in any connection whatever shall be instituted by purchasers in the Delhi Courts which should alone have jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this terms rights as to arbitration as provided for later.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has further laid great stress an the words "subject to Delhi jurisdiction" printed on the front side of the bill No. 1236 dated 24-2-1977. According to the learned counsel these two documents are plaintiffs' own documents which are binding on him and according to the above terms and conditions mentioned on the bill and the Order Form no other Court except the Delhi Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the present suit. Reliance in this connection has been placed on M/s. Singhal Transport v. M/s. Jesaram Jamum
