Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Parle vs Jadav on 21 February, 2011 cites

A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs A.P. Agencies, Salem on 13 March, 1989

7. The Special Civil Suit preferred by the present respondent arises out of the agreement of wholesalership, which allegedly has been terminated by the petitioner illegally and unilaterally. The tenor of plaint if is looked at, all the averments made therein are emerging from the said alleged breach of contract. The respondent (original plaintiff ) has insisted in the reply filed in the Special Suit as to how Court at Bharuch also has jurisdiction and the only defence that has been taken is of unilateral covenant or the standard form of contract where his signature is obtained allegedly under the influence of obtaining wholesalership. Undoubtedly, the Court at Bharuch may also have jurisdiction, considering other facts pleaded in the plaint on the jurisdiction of the Court, in the instant case, clause 10 of the said agreement, reproduced hereinabove, clinches the issue which restricts the jurisdiction as the parties have agreed to ouster the jurisdiction of all other Courts than that of Courts in Bombay, suffixing the same with the word" only" and has ruled in A. B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem (supra). With this exclusive word jurisdiction of other Courts appears to be clearly, unambiguously and explicitly excluded and, therefore, this is a fit case for interfering in the revision setting aside the order of trial Court below Exh.9.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 1151 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Sath Nanak Chand Shandurain, ... vs The Tinnevelly Tuticorin Electric ... on 18 January, 1974

Though this case arose out of an arbitration agreement there is no reason why the same rule should not apply to other agreements in so far as jurisdiction is concerned. Without referring to this decision a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Nanak Chand v. T.T. Electric Supply Co., AIR 1975 Mad 103 observed that competency of a Court to try an action goes to the root of the matter and when such competency is not found, it has no jurisdiction at all to try the case. But objection based on jurisdiction is a matter which parties could waive and it is in this sense if such jurisdiction is exercised by Courts it does not go to the core of it so as to make the resultant judgment a nullity. Thus it is now a settled principle that where there may be two or more competent Courts which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the cause of action having arisen therewithin, if the parties to the contract agreed to vest jurisdiction in one such court to try the dispute which might arise as between themselves the agreement would be valid. If such a contract is clear, unambiguous and explicit and not vague it is not hit by Ss. 23 and 28 of the Contract Act. This cannot be understood as parties contracting against the Statute. Mercantile Law and practice permit such agreements.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Globe Transport Corporation vs Triveni Engineering Works And Anr. on 31 March, 1983

"11. Mr. Shelat, however, submitted that in all those cases, the proceedings were initiated either by a third party or by the person who felt aggrieved by such agreement and was of the opinion that gross injustice was meted out to him and the contention was taken by the other side that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the agreement of the parties. In the light of the facts and circumstances, in those cases, this Court held that notwithstanding an agreement, the Court may grant relief in favour of the plaintiff. According to Mr. Shelat, in the instant case, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant Corporation to ignore Clause 36 and to invoke jurisdiction of Baroda Court. He submitted that the defendants were doing business at Baroda. It was the plaintiff- Corporation whose Head Office is at Bombay entered into an agreement with the defendants and they were compelled to sign such agreement, if they were interested in dealership/ distributorship. He further submitted that the clause was specific and unambiguous and explicitly clear. In such cases, the Courts have taken a view that if the agreement is not hit by the provisions of Section 28 of the Contract Act, only that Court would decide the matter which has been agreed to by the parties to the contract. A number of decisions have been cited before me. However, I intend to refer only two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Globe Transport Corporation v. Triveni Engg. Works, reported in 1984 GLH 63 (SC) and A. B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239. Again, it is pertinent to note that in both the cases, the matters reached to the Supreme Court only at preliminary stage. In the former case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the parties by agreement opted for jurisdiction of a particular Court excluding other Courts and if that Court had jurisdiction, such an agreement would be legal and valid and must be given effect to. in the latter case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made the position much more clear. Referring to a number of cases, the Supreme Court observed in para 21 as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 71 - Full Document
1   2 Next