Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1983 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1983 (3) TMI 257 - SC - Indian LawsWhether under Section 19 or Section 20 of the CPC can also be invoked on the ground that the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain within the jurisdiction of the court? Held that:- Here it could not be disputed that the appellant does carry on business in the City of Jaipur and if that be so, there can be no doubt that the Court in Jaipur City would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondents against the appellant. In that event, Clause 17 of the Contract of Carriage conferring ex- elusive jurisdiction on the Court in Jaipur City and excluding the jurisdiction of other courts would be valid and effective. Thus the High Court was in error in taking the view that the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil ; Judge, Allahabad was not excluded by Clause 17 of the Contract of Carriage and that Court had jurisdiction to entertain that suit. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court as also the order passed by the Civil Jude. Allahabad and taking view the Court of the Civil Judge, Allahabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
|