Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Snehalkumar Sarabhai vs Economic Transport Organisation And ... on 18 March, 1974

State Of Rajasthan vs Gujarat State Construction ... on 15 September, 1987

6. Oil behalf of the respondent, it as contended before the trial Court relying upon the two decisions of this Court, in the case of Snehalkumar Sarabhai v. Economic Transport Organisation, AIR 1975 Guj 72, and the case of Rai and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v, Trikamji Kanji Gajjar and Sons, (1975) 10 Guj LR 31 that Clause 41 does not create any total bar of jurisdiction as a matter of law, but the Court had discretion in the matter. In Snehalkumar Sarabhai' s case (supra), N4. P, Thakkar, J. (as fie then was) held that while parties can lawfully enter into an agreement to restrict the dispute to a particular court having jurisdiction that stipulation, though valid, could not take away the jurisdiction of the Court which had otherwise jurisdiction to try the matter. The ouster clause could operate as an estoppel against the parties to the contract, but it could riot tie down the power of the Court to do justice. In other words, the stipulation to confine the jurisdiction of the Court by the parties in one of the Courts does not have the effect of divesting the other Court of its jurisdiction, if it has a jurisdiction under law to decide the matter. The Court which has a jurisdiction in the matter is not bound by the stipulation entered into between the parties and could ignore the stipulation, if that Court considers having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it that such a stipulation would oppressively operate against one of the parties.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Pragat Gas Service And Anr. on 28 August, 1992

My attention was invited to the decision of this Court in the case of Snehalkumar Sarabhai v. Economic Transport Organisation and Anr. . In the said decision this Court held that while the parties can lawfully enter into an agreement restricting a dispute to a particular Court having jurisdiction and ordinarily the Courts would respect the agreement but the stipulation can be ignored by the excluded Court which otherwise possesses jurisdiction if it is considered to be oppressive having regard to the surrounding circumstances and stakes involved and can proceed with the matter.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Universal Petrochemicals Ltd. vs Rajasthan State Electricity Board on 17 April, 2001

In this connection the attention of the Court has been drawn to a judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Sneha Kumar Sarabhai v. Economic Transport Organization, . In that case Justice Thakkar, (as His Lordship then was) a learned Judge was considering the effect of a similar forum selection clause on the jurisdiction of a Court and referred to a new approach to the effect that a mere existence of forum selection clause does not tie the hands of the Court nor does it deprive the Court of its power to do justice in a case where such a clause is oppressive.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - P K Chattopadhyay - Full Document

Ajanta Enterprisers vs Hoechst Pharmaceutical Ltd. And Ors. on 1 September, 1986

4. In the trial Court, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that Clause 7 in the agreement is oppressive inasmuch as it would be very expensive for the plaintiff to proceed with the litigation at Bombay and it would be inconvenient to procure the attendance of the witnesses who are available at Cuttack and Bhubaneswar, and in case the hearing is taken up by the Cuttack Court it would be convenient to call for most of the documents available at Cuttack or Bhubaneswar and I prove the same causing no inconveneience to defendants if the suit is tried at Cuttack as the Company has an office at Cuttack. The defendants on the other hand relied upon Clause 7 claiming jurisdiction of the Courts in respect of greater Bombay to entertain the suit. While the plaintiff relied upon the decisions reported in (1976) 42 Cut LT 696, (Arja Venkata Ratnam v. Calendar Printing House of Sivakasi); AIR 1975 Guj 72, (Snehalkumar Sarabhai v. Economic Transport Organisation) and AIR 1978 Delhi 183 (FB), (Shri Ram Rattan Bhartia v. Food Corpn. of India), the defendants relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1971 SC 740, (Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd.). Distinguishing the decisions reported in (1976) 42 Cut LT 696 and AIR 1975 Guj 72, it was urged by the defendants that in those two cases the amounts of claim were negligible being Rs. 358.92 paise and Rs. 1,207.92 paise respectively, whereas the claim in the present case is for Rs. 2,19,538/-. Considering the facts and the circumstances and the amount of claim, the trial Court found the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants to be justified. It was held that Clause 7 of the agreement would not be oppressive in the facts of this case.
Orissa High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Prakash Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. vs P. Muthuswamy Gounder And Co. on 14 December, 1984

6. The matter may also be looked at from what is styled in some decisions as a new approach to this question. It comprises of the determination of the question whether the clause relating to the ouster of jurisdiction is intended to operate as an engine of oppression and as a means to defeat the ends of justice. It is pointed out that if it is considered to be oppressive, having regard to the surrounding circumstances including the stakes involved, such a stipulation can even be ignored. This is clearly pointed out by Thakkar, J. (as he then was) in M/s. Snehalkumar Sharabhai v Economic Transport Organisation . The following observations are relevant and opposite:
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Uber9 Business Process Services Pvt vs Chairman / Principal Judge on 25 March, 2021

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relied upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Interglobe Aviation Ltd., V. N.Satchidanand reported in (2011) 7 SCC 463 : (2011) 3SCC (Civ) 747 and the case reported in (1971) 1 SCC 286 Hakam Singh Vs. Gammon (India) Ltd. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the Judgment of Gujarat High Court in Snehalkumar Sarabhai Vs. Economic Transport Organisation reported in AIR 1975 Guj 72 at Page 72 (which has been referred to affirmatively by 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.No.405 of 2021 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt., Ltd., Vs. A.P.Agencies, AIR 1989 SC 1239), wherein it is held as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

Alumayer India Pvt.Ltd vs Larsen & Toubro Limited on 4 April, 2003

44. The next question that would arise is what is to be done when this Court finds that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on original side. Order 49 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure excludes the applicability of order VII Rule 10 and 10A to the original side of this Court. Does it mean that this Court have no power to return the plaint if it finds that Page No.27/37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.703 of 2004 it has no jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Division Bench in RPC'Connor Vs. PG Sampath Kumar (Supra) has held that even if order VII Rule 10 and 10A are not applicable to the original side of this Court, since this Court is a Court of records, this Court can still return the plaint exercising inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question for decision that was framed in the said case is as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ku. Divya Tiwari vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 February, 2001

15. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it becomes graphically clear that parties can enter into a contract to oust the jurisdiction of a Court but such an agreement must have been reached on the basis of free consent. In absence of free consent it can be construed that such a clause is designed to operate as an engine of operation and as a means to defeat the ends of justice. At the cost of repetition, I may reiterate that unless free consent flows the Court has the authority to exercise jurisdiction if it has the inherent jurisdiction to try the controvery. In the case at hand it is not a contract between the parties but a Prospectus has been issued by the respondents. In the Prospectus certain "Notes" have been mentioned at the anterior of cover page. True it is, when a candidate appears in the examination is bound by the conditions laid down in the prospectus, but to require a candidate to agitate his grievance only in the Courts of Delhi, I am of the considered opinion, is totally unconscionable. It cannot be presumed that such a note has been issued on the foundation of ad idem. It has been stated at the Bar, the National Open School has Coordinators at various places in the country and in this context if a student is asked to travel to Delhi to file a litigation for redressal of his grievances that would be not only unfair but unequitable.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next