Delhi HC: Bipolar Disorder Alone Does Not Qualify as Medical Disability Without Benchmark Criteria  ||  Kerala HC: Excommunicating Knanaya Catholics For Marrying Outside the Community is Unconstitutional  ||  Kerala HC: Temporary Use of Religious Land For Public Infrastructure is Not a ‘Transfer’ under Law  ||  P&H HC: Habeas Plea in Child Custody Case Not Maintainable if Child is With Natural Guardian and Safe  ||  Delhi HC: Illegal Termination Does Not Automatically Entitle Employee to Reinstatement or Back Wages  ||  Gujarat High Court: Forcing Toddler to Attend Court 6 Hours Weekly For Grandfather Visits is Unjust  ||  Supreme Court Rejects Sameer Wankhede’s Plea, Directs Timely Resolution of Disciplinary Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court Rejects NHAI Review on Solatium Retrospectivity, Bars Reopening Settled Claims  ||  SC: Excise Duty Exemptions Based on Intended Use Must be Construed Liberally For Assessee  ||  Supreme Court: DSC Personnel Eligible For Second Pension; Allows Condonation of Shortfall    

R.B.Saxena & Sons v. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. - (High Court of Delhi) (04 Oct 2016)

Agreement to confer exclusive jurisdiction on one of Courts to exclusion of other, neither forbidden by law nor against public policy

MANU/DE/2730/2016

Arbitration

Instant petition filed by Petitioner against Respondent, Mahindra Logistics Limited, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between parties arising out of contract dated 29th November 2014 which contains an arbitration clause (Article 22). In present case, registered office of Respondent is located in Mumbai although it has corporate office in Delhi. Agreement was entered into between them in Delhi. Under Article 19 of agreement, notice was to be served on Respondent at its registered office in Mumbai. Respondent states that it has only account in Mumbai and payments were disbursed to Petitioner from said account and payments were received by Petitioner from said account.

Very fact that, ouster clause is included in agreement between parties conveys their clear intention to exclude jurisdiction of Courts other than those mentioned in concerned clause. Conversely, if parties had intended that all Courts where cause of action or a part thereof had arisen would continue to have jurisdiction over dispute, exclusion clause would not have found a place in agreement between parties.

In present case, Courts both in Mumbai and in Delhi would have jurisdiction consequent upon a part of cause of action having arisen within jurisdiction of this Court. If parties have agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on one of those Courts, i.e., Courts at Mumbai to exclusion of other Courts, such clause is not void or hit by Section 23 of Contract Act as explained in A.B.C. Laminart and reaffirmed in Swastik Gases P. Limited. In that view of matter, this Court declined to entertain the present Petition while leaving it open to Petitioner to approach the Court in Mumbai for appropriate relief in accordance with law.

Relevant : Bharat Aluminium Inc. (BALCO) v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service Inc. 2012 (9) SCC 552, A.B.C. Laminart v. A.P. Agencies (1989) 2 SCC 163, Swastik Gases P. Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited reported in (2013) 9 SCC 32, Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Tags : ARBITRATOR   APPOINTMENT   AGREEMENT   JURISDICTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved