MAHARASHTRA CHESS ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 304 · Decided: 29-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
MAHARASHTRA CHESS ASSOCIATION
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5654 of 2019)
JULY 29, 2019
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Constitution  of India – Art.226 – Ouster of High Court’s
jurisdiction under, in view of existence of alternate remedy under
the private agreement entered between the parties – If permissible –
Second respondent, central governing authority for chess in India
disaffiliated the appellant – Third respondent was affiliated in place
of the appellant – Appellant filed writ petition – Second respondent
raised preliminary objection that the Bombay High Court did not
have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition – Bombay High Court
held that Clause 21 of the agreement between the appellant and the
second respondent (in the form of Constitution and Bye laws of the
latter) ousted the jurisdiction of all other courts except the courts
at Chennai – On appeal, held: No limitation can be placed on the
powers of the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction – Decision
whether or not to entertain an action under its writ jurisdiction is
fundamentally discretionary and remains to be taken by the High
Court on the facts and circumstances of particular case – If the
argument of the second respondent that the dispute should be heard
and decided at Chennai is accepted, the High Court of Madras
would hear the present matter – Therefore, the alternate remedy
(i.e. writ petition before the High Court of Madras) is equal in every
way to the present remedy sought by the appellant – Existence of an
alternate remedy, whether adequate or not, does not create an
absolute legal bar on the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by High
Court – In the present case, the Bombay High Court relied solely on
Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws to hold that its own
writ jurisdiction is ousted – It failed to examine the case holistically
and make a considered determination as to whether or not it should,
in its discretion, exercise its powers u/Art.226 – Scrutiny to be applied
to every writ petition u/Art.226 by the High Court is crucial
[2019]  10 S.C.R. 304
 304
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
305
safeguard of the rule of law under the Constitution – Not open to
High Court to abdicate this responsibility merely due to the existence
of a privately negotiated document ousting its jurisdiction –
Judgment of the High Court set aside – Writ Petition restored to the
file of the High Court for being considered afresh –Societies
Registration Act, 1860.
Constitution  of India – Art.226 – High Court’s jurisdiction
under –Contracts excluding the jurisdiction of all courts vis-a-vis
contract conferring jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts
having proper jurisdiction – Validity of such contracts – Discussed–
Indian Contract Act, 1872 – s.28.
Appellant-Society was an affiliated member of the second
respondent, a central governing authority for chess in India. The
Central Council of the second respondent passed resolution to
disaffiliate the appellant. The third respondent was affiliated in
place of the appellant. The appellant filed writ petition. The second
respondent raised preliminary objection that the Bombay High
Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The
Bombay High Court held that Clause 21 of the agreement
between the appellant and the second respondent (in the form of
Constitution and Bye laws of the latter) ousted the jurisdiction of
all other courts except the courts at Chennai. Hence, the present
appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
HELD:1.1 Parties cannot by contract exclude the
jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract would constitute an
agreement in restraint of legal proceedings and contravene
Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act 1872.  However, where
parties to a contract confer jurisdiction on one amongst multiple
courts having proper jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other
courts, the parties cannot be said to have ousted the jurisdiction
of all courts. Such a contract is valid and will bind the parties to a
civil action. Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a
court which lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate. But where several
courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the
dispute, they can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusively
before one of the several courts, to the exclusion of the others.
MAHARASHTRA CHESS ASSOCIATION  v. UNION OF INDIA
.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
306
SU

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