TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . L. Hansaria,JJ. JUDGMENT The following Order of the Court was delivered :- Leave granted. The appellant had initiated action in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad for recovery of certain amounts said to be due from the first respondent. The appellant filed the case on a contract executed by the first respondent. On filing the suit for recovery of the amounts, the respondents raised the objection as regards the jurisdiction of the Court and placed reliance on Clause (21) of the contract. The trial Court returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court by its order dated September 1, 1983. Thereon, the appellant carried the matter in revision to the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order made in C.R.No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally works for gain. So, normally that Court also would have jurisdiction where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises, but it will be subject to the terms of the contract between the parties. In this case, Clause (21) reads thus: "This work order is issued subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court situated in Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. Any legal proceeding will, therefore, fall within the jurisdiction of the above Court only." A reading of this clause would clearly indicate that the work order issued by the appellant will be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court situated in Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. Any legal proceeding wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and practice permit such agreements. In this view of the law and in view of the fact that the agreement under which Clause (21) was incorporated as one such clause, the parties are bound by the contract. The contract had not been pleaded to be void and being opposed to s.23 of the Contract Act. As seen, Clause (21) is unambiguous and explicit and that, therefore, the parties having agreed to vest the jurisdiction of the Court situated within the territorial limit of High Court of Karnataka, the Court of subordinate Judge, Dhanbad in Bihar State has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit laid by the appellant. There-fore, the High Court was right in upholding the order of the Trial Court returning the plaint for presentation to the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
