IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2446 OF 2024 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

MS. NIKITHA RAYAPPA D/O MR. D.H. RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

20/1, A-2, VILLA-LAVELLE

3^RD CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHINTAN CHINNAPPA M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD., 4^TH FLOOR, PINE VALLEY EMBASSY GOLF LINKS BUSINESS PARK CHALLAGHATTA BENGALURU-560 071 Digitally signed by ANJALI M …RESPONDENT Location: H igh Court of (BY SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

Karnataka THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(a) OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO. 5998/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU C/c LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU(CCH-76),, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 10 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter CPC) challenging the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the learned 75^th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-76) in O.S No.5998/2020.

2. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC on the ground, that it lacked territorial jurisdiction in view of the exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in the contract of employment executed between the appellant and the respondent.

3. The case raises substantial questions of law regarding the inter-play between party autonomy in choosing jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction provided under Section 20 of the CPC, the question is, whether the existence of a valid exclusive jurisdiction clause in an employment contract can override the territorial jurisdiction otherwise available under the statute.

4. As per the case of the appellant, she was appointed as an employee of respondent-Company Cushman and Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd., under appointment letter dated 10.04.2019. She was working at the respondent's office in Bengaluru which is a subordinate office of the respondent-Company.

5. It is her case that, during Covid-19 pandemic, the appellant was allegedly coerced to resign from employment failing which, she was threatened with termination. She claims to have been constructively terminated from employment without due process subsequently, initiated proceedings before the Internal Investigation Committee (IIC) at Bengaluru alleging workplace harassment and illegal termination.

6. Pursuant to the said events, the appellant instituted OS No.5998/2020 before 75^th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-76) seeking damages to the tune of Rs.21,75,000/- representing nine months salary along with other consequential reliefs. The respondent, upon entering appearance, filed an interim application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC praying for return of plaint on the ground that, appointment letter concurred exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts situated at New Delhi.

7. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties allowed the said application and returned the plaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court.

8. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the present appeal gives rise to the following key issues:

(i) Whether the existence of exclusive jurisdiction clause in the appointment letter, designating courts at New Delhi as the Forum for adjudication is valid and binding even when the alleged cause of action has arisen in Bengaluru?

(ii) Whether the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC in returning the p