Jurisdiction clauses in contracts specifying exclusive forums are valid if they do not contravene statutory provisions.

1. Instant appeal is directed against the order dated 15-12-2010 passed by District Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja in Civil Suit No. 3 - B / 2009.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under :
(i) The appellant / plaintiff was employed by the respondent - Cipla Limited as Marketing Executive.
(ii) The respondent used to pay salary to the plaintiff at Mumbai. Admittedly, service agreement was entered by the parties at Mumbai and Clause 20 of the agreement provide as follows :
"Any dispute arising out of and / or related to appellant's employment with the Company shall be subject to Mumbai Jurisdiction only."
(iii) Disputes having arisen out of the service contract the appellant filed a Civil Suit No. 3B / 2009 against the respondent in the Court of District Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 59,687/- and for mandatory injunction.
(iv) The respondent took a preliminary objection that the District Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as parties by express contract had agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction in regard to all disputes arising out of the contract on the Civil Court at Mumbai.

3. The trial Court, having found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Clause 20 of the Service Contract, returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. Hence, this appeal.

4. Shri A. N. Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant while not disputing the fact that part of cause of action also arose at Mumbai would submit: Clause 20 of the service contract is hit by S.23 and S.28 of the Indian Contract Act and is void and, therefore, the trial Court has committed an error of law in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and in returning the plaint for presentation in the proper Court.

5. Per contra, Shri Sunil Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent by placing his reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of A.V.M. Sales Corporation v. Anuradha Chemicals Private Limited , 2012 (2) SCC 315 : AIR 2012 SC (Civ) 703 would submit : both the Courts i.e. Court at Ambikapur, Sarguja and Court at Mumbai have jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the part of cause of action arose at both the places. Parties to the contract had agreed to vest jurisdiction in one such Court to try the dispute i.e. Court at Mumbai and, therefore, the Clause 20 of the service contract vesting jurisdiction in the Court at Mumbai is not hit by S.28 read with S.23 of the Contract Act and the trial has not committed any error of law in returning the plaint for its presentation to the proper Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused order impugned.

7. Indisputably, under the law, the Court at Mumbai has also jurisdiction to decide the present dispute as part of cause of action has also arisen within the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Court.

8. S.28 of the Act, which has a direct bearing on the facts of this case, clearly spells out that any agreement in restraint of legal proceedings is void. For the sake of reference, the same is extracted hereinbelow.
"28. Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings void. -
Every agreement,--
(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, or
(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry o