ORDER :- The petitioner-defendant is admittedly a firm carrying on business in Bombay. The respondent-firm entrusted textile goods to the defendant-carriers, and such entrustment is evidenced by Exs. A.1 and A.2. The respondent claimed that the goods, whose value is about Rs. 4464-50, were transported belatedly by the petitioner which occasioned loss of the goods, and therefore, he instituted the present action against the petitioner for recovery of the value of such textile goods handed over to the petitioner for carriage. The petitioner pleaded, inter alia, that the goods were lost due to fire in transit and contended particularly that the court at Erode did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit or try it in view of the specific clause in the contract of affreightment as disclosed in Exs. A.1 and A.2. The material clause, which is Cl.17 therein runs as follows -

"The contract shall be deemed to have been entered into and made with the administration and head office of the company at Bombay. It is, therefore, expressly agreed that the courts in Bombay alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of all claims and matters arising under the consignment or of the goods entr