All Bengal Transport Agency And Ors. vs Hare Krishna Banik on 13 January, 1984
7. Learned Advocate-General submits, by referring to Hakam Singh, that as such an agreement has not only been held as not violative of Section 28 of the Contract Act, but as binding between the parties, there is no escape from the conclusion that the two suits could not have been filed anywhere else than the appropriate Court in Malda, as that Court alone is contemplated by the agreement; and as the defendants' head office is there, the Malda Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit otherwise. It is stated that various High Courts, of the country have also taken the same view. He refers in this context to National Tar Products v. H. P. State Electricity Board, AIR 1979 Delhi 255; Savani Transport v. Mudaliar & Co., AIR 1979 Mad 21; EID Party (India) Ltd v. Savani Transport, AIR 1980 Andh Pra 30; Patel Roadways v. Bata India Ltd., AIR 1982 Cal 575; and C.K. Prasad v. Mohd. Mumir Alam, AIR 1983 NOC 33 (Pat), which has been fully reported in 1982 East LR 384.