Telangana High Court
Next Biometrics As vs Akshara Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd on 4 May, 2026
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
C.R.P. NO. 1986 OF 2021
DATE: 04.05.2026
BETWEEN:
NEXT Biometrics AS.
...Petitioner
AND
Akshara Enterprises India Pvt Ltd. and Six Others.
...Respondents
Mr. K. Arun Kumar, learned counsel representing Ms. G Manjira Venketesh, learned
counsel appearing for the petitoner.
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition is to the order passed by the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad ('Trial Court') dated 22.10.2021 in COS SR.No.1918 of 2021 whereby the Plaint was 2 returned to the petitioner for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction.
2. The decision of the Trial Court was based on Clause 17 of the Terms and Conditions of Sale present in the invoices and quotation, which stipulates that disputes shall be resolved by the Courts in Oslo, Norway.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (proposed plaintiff) submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by an observation of the Trial Court that a party who sues in a forum other than the agreed forum is guilty of breaching the contract and that the Court will not assist a party who itself is in breach of the contract and seeks relief from a Court that does not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
4. Counsel has not made any submissions with regard to the primary reason cited by the Trial Court for returning the Plaint.
5. We have perused Article 17 of the Terms and Conditions of Sale as reflected in the invoices. The petitioner is the seller of equipment to the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. 3
6. The petitioner filed the Suit before the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad for recovery of money. However, Article 17 clearly stipulates that any dispute under the Agreement shall be referred to the Courts in Oslo, Norway. Article 17 is set out below:
"Article 17. Miscellaneous Terms (A) Buyer shall not assign this contract or any right or interest therein without the prior written consent of Seller.
(B) This contract supersedes all previous communications, transactions, and understandings, whether oral or written, and constitutes the sole and entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof. No modification or deletion of, or addition to these terms shall be binding on Seller unless made in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of Seller at Seller's Corporate Headquarters.
(C) This contract shall be in all respects governed by the laws of the Kingdom of Norway. Any dispute shall be referred to and finally resolved by the Courts in Oslo, Norway.
(D) The invalidity, in whole or in part of any provision, shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision herein.
(E) All orders are subject to acceptance of these Terms and Conditions of Sale at Seller's Corporate Headquarters. Seller's Terms and Conditions of Sale shall take precedence over any conflict or material difference between Buyer's Purchase Order terms and conditions and the terms and conditions herein established.
(F) All Seller Products offered for sale or provided as samples to Buyer contain important and valuable intellectual property/confidential information of the Seller's. Buyer shall not reverse engineer Seller's hardware and/or Software.
Additionally, Seller sells Buyer its Products for the specific use in its manufactured product and subsequent resale. Buyer may not provide or resell any of Seller's Products to Seller's competitors without prior written consent of Seller."
7. Hence, Article 17 is clear. The impugned order records that the petitioner was unable to show any strong reasons for 4 deviating from the agreed jurisdiction clause as reflected in Article 17 of the Terms and Conditions of Sale.
8. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order since the wording of Article 17 is clear and unambiguous. In any event, the petitioner has the legal recourse of filing the Suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
9. We also do not find any ground to object to or expunge the observations of the Court with regard to breach of contract. It is evident from the relevant lines used in paragraph 9 of the impugned order that the Court meant breach only in respect of the petitioner approaching the wrong jurisdictional Court. The observation cannot be construed as a breach as understood under the provisions of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, i.e., a breach of material contractual obligations between the parties.
10. Counsel submits that the defendant No.1 is taking advantage of the observations made by the Trial Court. We however deem it fit to record that the petitioner is also at liberty to contest the said Suit on merits.
5
11. Hence, nothing further remains to be decided in the Civil Revision Petition.
12. CRP No.1986 of 2021, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 04.05.2026 NDS