MAN ROLAND DRUCKIMACHINEN AG versus MULTICOLOUR OFFSET LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 19-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAN ROLAND DRUCKIMACHINEN AG 
v. 
MULTICOLOUR OFFSET LTD. AND ANR. 
APRIL 19, 2004 
B 
[RUMA PAL AND. P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice Act, 1969: 
Se_ction 12-B-Compensation-Jurisdiction to entertain-A company 
C carried on business of manufacturing printing machines in Germany and was 
incorporated under German LaW:--Complainant had its registered office in 
India-Company agreed to sell printing machine to the complainant and 
shipped the same from Germany to India-Parties had agreed that the 
applicable law in the event of any dispute would be a particular Law- _ 
D Complainant filed compensation application against the said company before 
the MRTP Commission-The Commission held that it had jurisdiction to 
entertain the claim for compensation-Correctness of-Held: The remedies 
available under the Act are additional to the usual remedies available under 
the Contract Act-The jurisdictional clause in the agreement would, therefore, 
not apply to_proceedings before the Commission-Hence, the Commission had 
E jurisdiction to entertain the compensation application. 
Section 12-B-Compensatioh-Jurisdiction to entertain-Complaiant 
filed compensation application before the MRTP Commission against a 
company-Company objected to t~e jurisdiction of the Commission on the 
F grounds that (i) the pariies had agreed that the applicable law in the event of 
any dispute would be a partuclar Law; (ii) that the company neither provided 
any service nor carried on any trade or trade practice in India for the purpose 
of the Act-Commission rejected both the grounds-Correctness of-Held: An 
objection to jurisdiction can either be taken by way of demurrer or raised as 
an issue in the proceeding-The first objection was in fact in the nature of a 
G demurrer and could be decided as such-But the second objection could only 
be _decided by adducing evidence-Hence, Commission directed to deal with 
the second objection-Evidence. 
Section 36-A-Unfair trade practice-Effect of-Compensation-
Jurisdiction to entertain-MRTP Commission held that it had jurisdiction if 
H 
3% 
MAN ROLAND DRUCKIMACHINEN AG v.MULTICOLOUR OFFSET LTD. 
397 
the effect of the unfair trade practice was felt in India-Correctness of-Held: A 
Merely because the effect of an unfair trade practice is felt in India, this would 
not clothe the Commission with jurisdiction unless the 'effect' is itself an 
'unfair trade practice' within India. 
Contract Act, 1872: 
Sections 23 and 28-Agreement-Parties entered into an agreement 
that a particular Law would be applicable in the event of disputes-Validity 
of-Held: Such an agreement was not contrary to public policy nor did it 
contravene Ss. 23 and 28. 
B 
The appellant carried on its business of manufacturing printing C 
machines in Germany and was incorporated under German Law. 
Respondent No.I had its registered office in India. Pursuant to an 
agreement the appellant sold a printing machine to respondent No.J. The 
said machine was shipped by the appellant from Germany to India. 
Respondent ~o.l filed an application before the MRTP Commission 
complaining of unfair trade practices relating to the supply of the printing 
machine and claimed a certain amount as compensation. 
The appellant had raised objections to the Commission's jurisdiction 
D 
to entertain the application for compensation. The first ground of objection E 
was that the parties had agreed that the applicable law in the event of 
any disputes would be German Law. The second ground was that the 
appellant had neither provided any service nor carried on any trade or 
trade practice in India for the purpose of the Act. 
The Commission rejected both \he grounds. As far as the first ground F 
was concerned, it held that the clause regarding the choice of forum was 
contrary to Sections 23 and 28 of ·the Contract Act, 1872 and was void. 
Hence the appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. When the parties have agreed on a particular forum, the 
Courts will enforce such an agreement. This is not because of a lack or 
ouster of its own jurisdiction by reason of consensual conferment of 
jurisdiction on another Court, but because the Court will not be a party 
to a breach of an agreement. Such an agreement is not contrary to public 
G 
H 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A policy nor does it contravene Section 23 or 28 of the Contract Act, 1872. 
This principle is applicable to a situation where the 

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