The absence of consensus or agreement on the question of jurisdiction of Courts allowed the parties to institute the lawsuit in either of the specified jurisdictions.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

OMP No.447 of 2014.

The defendant/applicant by moving this application under Order 7 Rule 11 readwith Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. It is submitted that the perusal of various purchase orders filed alongwith the plaint would show that the parties to the suit had agreed that only the Court at Satara, Maharashtra will have the jurisdiction to try the dispute between the parties. Since the parties had agreed to the jurisdiction of the Court at Satara, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. In reply to this applicati on, the plaintiff/non-applicant has submitted that the cause of action had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the plaintiff/non-applicant was having its industrial unit at Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh and the devices were manufactured and shipped from Baddi to the destination as directed by the defendant, the bills/invoices were issued from Baddi, the payments were received at Baddi and encashed at Baddi within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is further claimed that in the invoices issued by the plaintiff, it was specifically stated that all disputes would be subject to the jurisdiction of Court at Solan.

3. It is clear that there is no consensus or agreement on the question of jurisdiction of Courts while the purchase order mentions “subject to jurisdiction of Satara (Maharashtra) Courts only”, the invoice of the plaintiff, on the other hand, states that “all disputes are subject to Solan jurisdiction”. The acceptance by the plaintiff as indicated in the invoice clearly indicates its intention that any dispute should be settled by the Courts at Solan only as against the intention expressed by the defendant in its purchase order that it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Satara (Maharashtra) only. Thus, there is no agreement or consensus on this point.

4. In light of the aforesaid pleadings, the following question arises for determination:-

i) Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the suit?

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s Sponge Iron India Ltd., versus M/s Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd., Bangalore AIR 1989 Andhra Pradesh 206 to claim that ouster of jurisdiction of the Courts cannot be readily inferred and in case the purchase orders had certain stipulations regarding jurisdiction and the invoices in turn specified the jurisdiction of another Court, then both the Courts would be having concurrent jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has further relied upon C. Satyanarayana versus Kanumarlapudi Lakshmi Narasimham LAWS (APH)-1966-9-2, Messrs. Delux Roadlines versus National Insurance Co Ltd LAWS (MAD)-1986-9-25, and Baldev Steel Limited versus Empire Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited LAWS(DLH)-2001-5-141.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for the defendant has relied Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. versus Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd. (2004) 4 SCC 671, Rajasthan State Electricity Board versus Universal Petrol Chemicals Limited (2009) 3 SCC 107 and M/S JHS Svendgaard Laboratories Limited versus M/S Procter and Gamble Home Product Limited and others 2014 (1)Shim. LC 1.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. There is no need to make reference to the judgments cited by both the learned counsel for the parties in view of the three Judges’ judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swastik Gases Private Limited versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited (2013) 9 SCC 32 wherein the entire law on the subject was discussed in the following manner:-

“11. Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd; (1971) 1 SCC 286 is one of the earlier cases of this Court wherein this Court highlighted