How to override the exclusive jurisdiction clause?

 A note of caution was sounded by M.P. Thakkar, J, as he then was, in Shehali Kumar Sarabhal v. E.T. Orgn. MANU/GJ/0070/1975 : AIR1975Guj72 observing that the ouster clause could operate as estoppel against the parties to the contract, but it could not tie the hands of the Court and denude it of the powers to do justice. Ordinarily, it was observed: the Courts would respect the agreement between the parties which was borne out of the meeting of their minds out of consideration of convenience, but the Courts were not obliged to do so in every case, and that a new approach to the question deserved to be made where the ouster clause was 'calculated to operate as an engine of oppression and as a means to defeat the ends of justice". In such a case the free consent may be wanting and injustice may be avoided.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2682 of 1982

Decided On: 13.03.1989

A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. Vs  A.P. Agencies, Salem

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.L. Oza and K.N. Saikia, JJ.

Citations: AIR 1989 SC 1239, 1989 SCR (2) 1,MANU/SC/0001/1989

Print Page

contract act jurisdiction of court

A.V.M. Sales Corporation Vs. Anuradha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Decided on 17.01.2012) MANU/SC/0033/2012

Agreement to exclude jurisdiction of one Court in preference to other - Validity thereof - Whether the parties to an agreement mutually agree to exclude the jurisdiction of one Court in preference to the other, if two Courts have jurisdiction to try a suit and as to whether the same would amount to violation of the provisions of Sections 23 and 28 of the Indian Contract Act?

Held, it is now a settled principle that where there may be two or more competent Courts which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the cause of action having arisen there within, 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 explicit and not vague, it is not hit by Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act and cannot also be understood as parties contracting against the statute.

Print Page

Print Page