LexM/S. SWASTIK GASES P. LTD. versus INDIAN OIL CORP. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 7 S.C.R. 581 M/S. SWASTIK GASES P. LTD. v. INDIAN OIL CORP. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 5086 of 2013) JULY 03, 2013 [R.M. LODHA, MADAN B. LOKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: A B s. 11 - Application for appointment of arbitrator - • C Territorial jurisdiction - Jurisdiction clause in agreement specifying the court - Held: Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the courts at a particular place and such courts have jurisdiction to deal with the matter, an inference may be drawn that parties intended to exclude all other courts - A D clause like this is not hit by s. 23 of the Contract Act - Such a clause is neither forbidden by law nor it is against the public policy - It does not offend s. 28 of the Contract Act in any manner - Absence of words like "alone~ "only", "exclusive" or "exclusive jurisdiction" is neither decisive nor does it make E any material difference in deciding the jurisdiction of a court - The very existence of a jurisdiction clause in an agreement makes the intention of the parties to, an agreement quite clear and it is not advisable to read such a clause in the agreement like a statute - Contract Act, 1872 - ss.23 and 2 8 ~Maxim, F expressio unius est exclusio alterius. An agreement was entered into between the appellant and the IBP Company (subsequently merged with the respondent Corporation) whereby the appellant G was appointed the company's consignment agent for marketing lubricants at Jaipur (Rajasthan). Dispute arose between the parties and, ultimately, the appellant._filed an application uls 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 581 H 582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A 1996 before the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court for appointment of an arbitrator. The company contested the application, inter alia, by raising a plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter since the agreement had been made subject to B jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata. The designated Judge held that Rajasthan High Court did not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application and dismissed the same while giving liberty to the appellant to file the arbitration application in the Calcutta High c Court. In the instant appeal, the question for consideration before the Court was: "whether, in view of clause 18 of the consignment agency agreement dated 13.10.2002, the Calcutta High Court has exclusive jurisdiction in respect D of the application made by the appellant u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996". E Dismissing the. appeal, the Court HELD: Per R.M. Lodha. J.(for himself and for Kurian Joseph. J.): 1.1. Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the courts at a particular place and such courts have F jurisdiction to deal with the matter, an inference may be drawn that parties intended to exclude all other courts. A clause like this is not hit by s. 23 of the Contract Act at all. Such clause is neither forbidden by law nor is it against the public policy. It does not offend s.28 of the G Contract Act in any manner. [para 31) [607-F-G] H Hakam Singh v. Mis. Gammon (India) Ltd. 1971 (3) SCR 314 = (1971) 1 SCC 286; A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. A.P. Agencies, Salem 1989 (2) SCR 1 = (1989) 2 SCC 163; R.S.O. V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Vallabh- SWASTIK GASES P. LTD. v. INDIAN OIL CORP. LTD. 583 Glass Works Ltd. 1993 (1) SCR 455 = (1993) 2 SCC 130; A Angile Insulations v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. and Another 1995 (3) SCR 443; Shriram City Union Finance Corporation Limited v. Rama Mishra (2002) 9 SCC 613; Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd. 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 333 = (2004) 4 SCC 671 ; Balaji Coke Industry Private Limited v. B Maa Bhagwati Coke Gujarat Private Limited 2009 (14) SCR 241 = (2009) 9 SCC 403; New Moga Transport Co., through its Proprietor Krishanlal Jhanwar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 623 = (2004) 4 SCC 677; Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. and Another 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 495 = C (2005) 7 SCC 791; Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Universal Petrol Chemicals Limited 2009 (1) SCR 138 = (2009) 3 SCC 107; and A. V.M. Sa/es Corporation v. Anuradha Chemicals Private Limited 2012 (1) SCR 318 = (2012) 2 SOC 315 - relied on. D Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. and Another 2005 (3) Suppl. S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.