NEW MOGA TRANSPORT COMPANY, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR KRISHANLAL JHANWAR versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 23-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

NEW MOGA TRANSPORT COMPANY, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR 
A 
KRISHANLAL JHANWAR 
v. 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
APRIL 23, 2004 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 20-Jurisdiction of Civil 
Court-More than one court having jurisdiction-Limitation of jurisdiction C 
to one court by parties under an agreement-Validity of-Held: Parties by 
an agreement can limit the jurisdiction to one of the Courts-However, 
parties by an agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on a court which otherwise 
does not have jurisdiction-Contract Act, I 872. 
Respondent No. 1 - Plaintiff no. 1 engaged appellant-defendant for D 
transportation of certain goods to Bamala for delivery to plaintiff No. 2, where 
the same got destroyed due to fire before the delivery. Respondent No. 1 having 
settled the claim with plaintiff no. 2 for the damages, filed suit against the 
appellant claiming compensation in the court where the cause of action arose. 
Appellant took the plea that the court where the cause of action arose, had no 
jurisdiction because the consignment note specifically indicated the E 
jurisdiction to be with the court where the head office was situated Le. Udaipur 
and excluded jurisdiction of all other courts. 
Trial court did not accept the plea. In appeal First Appellate Court upset 
the verdict of trial court. High Court restored the judgment of the trial court. F 
In appeal to this court the appellant contended that the case could not 
have been entertained in the Court at a place other than the place indicated in 
the consignment note because the parties by an agreement had fixed the 
jurisdiction of a particular court and excluded jurisdiction of other courts. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Where two courts or more have, under CPC jurisdiction, to 
try a suit or proceeding, an agreement between the parties that the dispute 
between them shall be tried in any one of such Courts, is not contrary to public 
623 
G 
H 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A policy and in no way contravenes Section 28 of the contract Act, 1872. 
Therefore, if on the facts of a given case more than one Court has jurisdiction, 
parties by their consent may limit the jurisdiction to one of the two Courts. 
But by an agreement parties cannot confer jurisdiction to deal with a matter. 
It is open to the parties to choose any one of the two competent Courts to 
decide the disputes. Once the parties bound themselves as such, it is not open 
B for them to choose a different jurisdiction. High Court was not justified in 
upsetting the order of First Appellate Court. It is not a case where the chosen 
Court did not have jurisdiction. [629-A-B) 
Hakam Singh v. Mis. Gammon (India) Ltd, AIR (1971) SC 740 and Ml 
C s. Shriram City Union Finance Corporation Ltd v. Rama Mishra, AIR (2002) 
SC 2402, relied on. 
2. Regarding question of exclusion of the other Courts, the intention of 
the parties can be culled out from use of the expressions "only", "alone", 
"exclusive" and the like with reference to a particular Court. But the intention 
D to exclude a Court's jurisdiction should be reflected in clear, unambiguous, 
explicit and specific terms. In such case only the accepted notions of contract 
would bind the parties. The first Appellate Court was justified in holding that 
it is only the Court at Udaipur which had jurisdiction to try the suit. [629-G) 
Patel Roadways Ltd., Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company, [1991) 4 
E sec 210, referred to. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2645 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.2003 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.R. No. 4602 of 2000. 
Shiv Sagar Tiwari, U.B. Chaurasia, Mrs. Mani Mittal and Praven Pandey 
for the Appellants. 
Slidhir Kr. Gupta, K.K. G~pta (NP) and M.K. Dua for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A~IJIT PASAYA T, J. Leave granted. 
In this appeal, the only question that is raised is, whether the High 
Court's conclusion that the Civil Court at Bamala had jurisdiction to try the 
H suit filed by respondent No. l -
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter 
NEW MOGA TPT. CO. v. U.1. INSURANCE CO. LTD. [PASA YAT, J.] 
625 
referred to as 'PlaintiffNo. I') and Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. (hereinafter A 
referred to as 'plaintiff No. 2') is correct or not. While the trial Court held that 
the Bamala Court had jurisdiction, the first Appellate Court held otherwis

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