A contract's jurisdiction is enforceable only when there is clear mutual consent among parties, particularly in the absence of exclusive wording in the jurisdiction clause.

ORDER

Dated this the 08th day of January, 2024 The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.1358 of 2017 on the files of the Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. The suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff, seeking to realise a sum of Rs.8,69,836/- from the revision petitioner, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 17.04.2016 onwards. The averments in the suit are to the following effect;

In 2016, the defendant expressed interest in hiring one Crawler Mounted Crane having capacity of 165 MT from the plaintiff for engaging in their project site in Chattisgarh. After negotiations, the defendant issued a purchase order dated 11.03.2016 containing the commercial terms and conditions for hiring the Crawler Mounted Crane. The purchase order was accepted by the plaintiff with certain modifications and the crane was given on hire. Thereafter, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the hire charges, even after issuance of repeated demand notices.

2. On receipt of notice in the suit, the revision petitioner entered appearance and filed I.A.No.3160 of 2018, praying to return the plaint for presentation before the court in which the suit should have been instituted. It was contended by the revision petitioner that the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam lacks territorial jurisdiction since no part of the cause of action had arisen at Ernakulam. It was further contended that, as per Clause 17 of the terms and conditions of the purchase order dated 11.03.2016, only the courts in Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State have jurisdiction with respect to the disputes arising out of the agreement.

3. The plaintiff filed counter affidavit, contending that, in the letter dated 14.03.2016, issued in reply to the purchase order dated 11.03.2016, amendments with respect to the working hours and payment of hire charges had been suggested and the revision petitioner had not objected to those amendments. In the reply letter, it was also specified that the actions of the plaintiff would be subject to Cochin jurisdiction alone.

4. The learned Munsiff, after detailed consideration, dismissed the application seeking return of plaint, finding the contention regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction to be untenable. Hence, this revision petition.

5. Adv. Parvathi Menon, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that, the parties having agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the courts situated in the places mentioned in the purchase order dated11.03.2016, the court below grossly erred in relying on the printed words in the letter dated 14.03.2016, to hold that the court at Ernakulam has got jurisdiction. In the reply letter dated 14.03.2016 issued by the plaintiff, only the conditions with respect to working hours and payments were sought to be amended. The silence on the part of the plaintiff with respect to the exclusive jurisdiction clause amounts to consent. The Apex Court decision inSwastik Gases (P) Ltd v Indian Oil Corpn.Ltd [ (2013) 9 SCC 32 ] and decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Shridhar Vyapaar Private Limited v Gammon India Limited [2018 SCC OnLine Cal 11749] are pressed into service to buttress the contention. Relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court in India Roadway Corporation v. Unneerikutty [1990 (1) KLT 292], it is contended that the printed words 'subject to Cochin jurisdiction', at the bottom of the letterhead, cannot be treated as a special contract conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Cochin Courts.

6. Adv.Manu Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, support