IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6900 of 2025 [On note of order dated 01/12/2025 in R/SCA/6900/2025 ]

==========================================================

M/S. INDIANA CONVEYORS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus PROPRIETOR OF M/S. V.T. ENGINEERS , TUSHARBHAI V. THAKAR ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS. MEGHA JANI, ADVOCATE FOR MS KRISHA M BHIMANI(12795) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 01/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY)

1. Heard Ms. Megha Jani, learned advocate for Ms. Krisha B. Bhimani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Premal S. Rachh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.

2. A concise narration of the facts giving rise to the present petition is set out as under:

2.1 The present petition emanates from proceedings originally instituted as Special Civil Suit No. 15 of 2018, later re-registered as Commercial Civil Suit No. 25 of 2023, before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar. The said Suit was instituted by the respondent - original plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 6,10,439/-, together with interest, alleging that it had executed sub-contract works comprising the raising of a conveyor belt and carrying out installation and erection activities at the GSFC, Sikka Unit, Khavdi.

2.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that the aforesaid work was duly completed in July 2017, but the contractual dues remained unpaid by the petitioner - original defendant. In support of its claim, the respondent placed on record a list of documents, which included, inter alia, a Letter of Intent (LOI) issued by the petitioner. The petitioner has asserted that it may be required to produce further documents as the proceedings evolve. Notably, Clause 19 of the LOI provides that any disputes arising out of the said instrument shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Mumbai.

2.3 The petitioner filed an application on 30.03.2019 raising a preliminary objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Jamnagar Court contending that, in view of the expressed jurisdictional clause contained in the LOI dated 01.03.2017, only the courts at Mumbai were competent to adjudicate disputes arising therefrom. The respondent opposed the jurisdictional challenge by filing its reply. In the interregnum, the petitioner also filed its written statement on merits and subsequently, on 05.08.2019, the petitioner submitted its written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

2.4 By an order dated 11.09.2023, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar allowed the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), directing that the plaint be returned for presentation before the competent court. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of the CPC, registered as Commercial Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2024.

3. By the impugned order dated 09.04.2025, the learned Principal District Judge, Jamnagar allowed the respondent’s appeal and set aside the order dated 11.09.2023, whereby plaint was ordered to be returned. It is against the aforesaid appellate order dated 09.04.2025 that the present petition has been instituted.

4. Ms. Megha Jani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner on behalf of Ms. Krisha B. Bhimani, has submitted that Clause 19 of the LOI unequivocally provides that any dispute arising out of the LOI shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts at Mumbai alone. It is contended that the said clause operates as an exclusionary jurisdiction clause and, by necessary implication, ousts the jurisdiction of all other courts in view of Section 9 of CPC.

Clause 19 of the LOI reads thus:

“Terms & Conditions :-

19. Any dispute arising o