Parties to a contract can agree that disputes arising under the contract shall be adjudicated upon by a specific court. Such an agreement is valid and enforceable.

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 entrusted for transport."

Based on this specific clause, touching upon the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the courts in the State of Tamil Nadu, the contention of the petitioner-defendant was that the civil court at Erode did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned District Munsif was of the view that in the absence of any evidence that the respondent-plaintiff was aware are that the contract contained such a clause under which he submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay Court, it could not be said that the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He therefore held on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction against the petitioner-defendant. Hence this civil revision petition.

2. It is unnecessary to set out in detail the law touching on the issue in question, except to refer to a Bench decision of this court in Hoosen Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Ca. Ltd., AIR 1954 Mad 845. That was a case where the defendant was a limited company situate in the State of Bihar with its registered office at Kanpur. The plaintiffs were dealers in sugar carrying on business in Madras. The plaintiff placed orders with the defendant for certain bags of sugar. The contract form relating to the said contract purported to be offers made by the plaintiffs for the purchase of sugar and it was stated that the plaintiffs would agree to sign formal contracts on receipt of the acceptance of the offer. Before instituting the suit the plaintiffs sought for leave to sue and obtained an ex parte order granting such leave to sue the defendant at Madras. The defendant's objection was that leave to sue ought not to have been granted and that the leave should be revoked for want of jurisdiction and on other grounds. The application for revocation of leave was founded on the following clause which was the subject-matter of the contract between the parties -

"All disputes in respect of this contract shall be settled by arbitration failing which shall be settled in the court of the seller's jurisdiction where this contract shall be deemed to have been entered into."

After an elaborate consideration of the scope and impact of this clause on the question of jurisdiction of civil courts, Dr. Rajamannar C.J. observed -

"Where there are two competent courts, which can deal with the subject matter of the litigation, it is open to the parties to a contract to agree that disputes in respect thereof shall be adjudicated upon by one of the two competent courts and such an agreement is perfectly legal and not contrary to S.28 of the Contract Act.

Authorities can be multiplied. In fact, following this decision another Bench of this court in M/s. Nanak Chand Shadurain v. Tinnelvoeli-Tuticorin Electric Supply Co. Ltd. AIR 1975 Mad 103, held that, if a clear and unam