M/S. ANGILE INSULATIONS versus M/S. DAVY ASHMORE INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 443 · Decided: 18-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

). 
MIS. ANGILE INS{JLATIONS 
v. 
MIS. DAVY ASHMORE INDIA LTD. AND ANR. 
APRIL 18, 1995 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.j 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 16 to 20-Jwisdiction-lnten-
tion of parties explicit in contract-Not hit by Ss.23, 28 of Contract Act-Not 
amounting to contracting against statute-Such agreements between parties 
A 
B 
permitted by mercantile law and practice. 
C 
Comract Act, 1872: Sections 23, 28-Jurisdiction-lntention of parties 
to a contract made explicit in the agreement-Not hit by Ss.23, 2&-Permitted 
by Mercantile law and practice. 
Appellant filed a case against Respondent In the Court of Sub-Judge, D 
Dhanbad for recovery of certain amounts due from first respondent on the 
basis of a contract executed by it. The respondent raised objection as 
regards jurisdiction of the Court placing reliance on clause (21) of the 
contract which stated that the contract was subject to the jurisdiction of 
Bangalore High Court. The trial Court returned the plaint for presenta· E 
lion to the proper Court. Appellant preferred a Revision which was dis· 
missed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant contended that since part of the cause of action arose 
in Dhanbad as per S.20 CPC jurisdiction vests with the Sub-Judge, Dhan· 
fa 
ha~ 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD .: 1.1. Normally that court also would have jurisdiction where 
the cause of action, wbolly or in part, arises. But it will be subject to the G 
terms of the contract. between the parties. In the instant case, a reading of 
the relevant clause would clearly indicate that the work order Issued by 
the appellant would be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court 
situated In Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. Any legal proceeding will, 
therefore, be in_stltuted In a Court of competent jurisdiction within the 
jurisdiction of High Court of Bangalore only. [445-F, H, 446·A] 
H 
443 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. Where there may be two or more competent courts which can 
entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the cause ofaction having arisen 
therewith, 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 
B explicit and not vague, it Is not hit by ss.l3 and 28 of the Contract Act. 
This cannot be understood as parties contracting against the statute. 
Mercantile law and practice permit such agreements. (446-C, DJ 
1.3. Clause(21) or the contract Is unambiguous and explicit and the 
parties having agreed to vest the jurisdiction or the Court situated within 
C the territorial limit of High Court of Karnataka, the Court of Subordinate 
Judge, Dhanbad in Blhar State has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit 
laid by the appellant. Therefore, the High Court was right in upholding 
the order of the Trial Court returning the plaint for presentation to the 
• 
proper Court. [ 446·FJ 
D 
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. A.P. Agencies Sa{em, (1989) 2 
sec 163, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5185 of 
1995. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.87 of the Patna High Court 
F 
G 
. in C.R.No. 20 of 1984(R). 
S.N. Mishra, D.P. Mukherjee and Sanjay Kumar Ghose for the 
Appellant. 
P.R. Seetharaman, Adv. (NP) for the Respondents. 
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 
H reliance on Clause (21) of the contract. Th!' trial Court returned the plaint 
ANGILEINSULATIONS v. DAVY ASHMOREINDIALTD. 
445 
for presentatio1do the proper court by its order dated September 1, 1983. A 
j 
Thereon, the appellant carried the matter in revision to the High Court. 
The High Court in the impugned order made in C.R.No. 20/84 dated 
August 17, 1987 upheld the view of the trial Court and dismissed the 
revision. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
The principal contention raised by the appellant is that s.20 of CPC B 
provides that where cause of action had arisen partly within territorial 
jurisdiction of one court or partly 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.